Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL
(By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By
Order)

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

ABERYSTWYTH HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 13 March.

MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 13 March.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 13 March.

LOTHIAN REGION (EDINBURGH WESTERN RELIEF ROAD)
ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday 13 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Marlow: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what date he anticipates that the reforms he seeks in the common agricultural policy will be implemented.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): We have made progress in agreeing the financial guideline, milk quotas and measures for the wine sector. We must make further progress this year, particularly with cereals and beef, in limiting the production of surplus commodities and the burden that they place on the budget.

Mr. Marlow: A generation ago Professor Mansholt promised reforms of the common agricultural policy, yet this year we seem to have the highest prices, the highest subsidies and the lowest farm profits since the war. What will the Government do about that? Last year, for example, we gave away the 1 per cent. VAT limit, on the basis that the financial mechanism would work. If the financial mechanism does not work — many of us believe that it will not and said so at the time, when we also said that the dollar might go down—will my right hon. Friend put radical alternatives before the House, including the repatriation of our own agricultural produce?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend is a well known merchant of gloom and doom on these matters. I remind him that since the United Kingdom joined the Community productivity per person in agriculture has risen by more than 70 per cent., that the volume of output has risen by more than 18 per cent., that the volume of our exports of agricultural products, food and drink has risen by mom than 25 per cent., and that we now produce 80 per cent. of our needs in temperate foodstuffs compared with 60 per cent. in 1973.

Mr. Freud: At the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union the Minister told the farmers that he would not agree to anything that would discriminate against the British farmer. Did he say that to stop the farmers lynching him, or did he mean it? If he meant it, will he repeat it now at the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Jopling: I have said many times that there are elements in the current price proposals which discriminate seriously against Britain's interests. I told the Council of Ministers in Brussels only last week that some of them were unacceptable.

Mr. Forth: What is the estimated impact of the movement of the exchange rate with the dollar? Does my right hon. Friend expect a supplementary budget in the EEC this year? Does he believe that the chronic surpluses in the CAP are a root cause of the problems? If so, what will he do about them?

Mr. Jopling: The Commission and the Council are committed to the financial guidelines. It will be an important objective to ensure that it is held to in the coming negotiations on the CAP.

Mr. John: In the Financial Times this morning we read that the extra agricultural budget is likly to be not £450 million, but £1 billion. Is that what the Minister calls financial discipline?

Mr. Jopling: In the negotiations that lie ahead of us we have to seek further savings so that we can live within our financial guideline.

Food Manufacturers

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to meet representatives of food manufacturers.

Mr. Jopling: I am regularly in touch with representatives of food manufacturers. Whilst I have no immediate plans to meet them, I am ready to do so on specific problems at any time.

Mr. Lloyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. I am glad to learn that he is ready to meet the food manufacturers to discuss specific matters. Is he aware that they now accept the need for, and the desirability of, the removal of the Official Secrets Act as it applies to the food advisory committees? Will the Minister meet representatives of the food industry so that he can discuss this matter with them and tell them when he intends to legislate on the issue, so that the secrecy surrounding the use of additives to food can be broken and the public can have access to and knowledge of what takes place?

Mr. Jopling: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is still pursuing a very old story which I thought had been put to rest. He should know, and I am surprised that he has not seen the statements which have been made, that members of the committees do not have to sign the Official Secrets Act. However, some information which comes their way is commercially sensitive and they are asked, in the same way as any Government Department is, to observe the need to keep it confidential.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister not aware that his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, whose absence we regret and who is our sparring partner on these matters, has said that there are some formal limitations on secrecy in the advisory committees? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the formal thing that the members are asked to sign, even within the parameters that he has outlined to us about the confidentiality of business agreements?

Mr. Jopling: As I said earlier, members of the committees are not required to sign the Official Secrets Act. However, certain information is given which is commercially private and the committees are asked to keep it that way. I think that that is the only reasonable way in which to proceed. I hope that at some time the hon. Gentleman will look at the huge mass of technical material which these committees churn out. We are trying to make further information available through the British Library in the immediate future if we can arrange it.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Eastham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to ensure that the price proposals agreed by the Counicl of Ministers encourage a reduction in surplus commodities within the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes in agricultural policy he is seeking in order to respond to the present and prospective levels of food production in the United Kingdom and the European Community.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): In order to tackle the problems of the CAP we are seeking in this year's price negotiations and over a period of years to secure price proposals and other measures to limit the production of surplus commodities and the burden that they place on the budget.

Mr. Eastham: I am glad the Minister recognises that there are serious problems in the CAP. May I remind him that in Europe in 1985 we had surpluses of 10·5 million tonnes of wheat, 2 million tonnes of barley, 0·5 million tonnes of beef and 1 million tonnes of butter? What does the Minister propose to do to remove these surpluses? Can he not give them to the pensioners or pass them on to the Third world?

Mr. Gummer: No one who has followed any of the speeches, comments or work done by Ministers could possibly ignore the fact that we want to reduce these surpluses. The hon. Gentleman would make a great deal more fuss if there was shortage of food.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware of the deep and intensifying anxiety which is felt in the farming community, which has been illustrated by the substantial fall of 40 per cent. in the price of land in some areas? Is he aware that farmers believe that his right hon. Friend is guilty of serious intertia, which was illustrated during the previous Question Time when he said that he had been looking at the matter urgently for months?

Mr. Gummer: I do not think that the farmers would hold that view. They know perfectly well that we are now living in a world of surplus, rather than of shortage, and if the hon. Gentleman looks back at his Government's performance he will see that they did nothing to prepare the country for it.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the farming industry is worried that it might be unreasonably discriminated against in the search to find ways in which the surpluses can be reduced? Will he take special care in his negotiations in Brussels to ensure that British agriculture is not disadvantaged?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has put his finger on one aspect which has to be part of the negotiations. It is right to expect the farming industry throughout Europe to bear the burden of dealing with surpluses. The burden must be borne fairly. It must not land unfairly on the backs of farmers in Britain compared with what happens to their neighbours in Europe.

Mr. Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the recent downward movement of the dollar could count as an exceptional circumstance?

Mr. Gummer: I do not believe that we can solve the problems of agriculture unless we are prepared to adhere to the financial guidelines which have been agreed.

Mr. Foulkes: What action is the Minister taking within the Council of Ministers to stop the dumping of subsidised surpluses in Third world countries? Is he aware that sugar


is being sold below the market price in Jamaica, thus causing great devastation to the economy of that country and making it much more difficult for countries such as Jamaica to repay their debts?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should be a little more careful about the detail of what is happening to the sugar market in Jamaica and other countries, because the situation is much more complicated than he suggests. I hope that he will have a word with his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) about the supply of surpluses to developing countries.

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Can my right hon. Friend arrange for a study trip to he organised for Labour Members who complain about surpluses? I suggest that there should he a study trip to examine food production in the Soviet Union, where I understand they have overcome the problems of surpluses quite successfully.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. Almost every major part of the world produces enough food to feed its people, except the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc, which are incompetent.

Mr. Torney: Will the Minister consider instituting research into breadmaking wheat, so that it can be grown in Britain instead of being imported from abroad, and so reduce the massive surpluses of cereals in this country and in the Common Market generally?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is a little behind the times, and he does down the previous Labour Government. Over the past few years the Chorley Wood process has made it possible for us to use to a large extent breadmaking wheat which has been grown in Britain. It is only the particularly bad weather of this year that has meant that the quality of our wheat, unusually, has not been suitable for breadmaking, and as a consequence we have had to import suitable wheat.

Mr. Torney: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but it is clear that he does not know the facts.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no matter how much the dollar falls and thus creates greater expenditure in disposing of surpluses, this will not be used by the Government as an excuse for asking for an increase in the VAT contribution to the EEC?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is the last person in the House to demand that any member of the Government answer a question which begins, "No matter what happens to something, will he confirm?" I shall therefore not confirm.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one reason for the chaos in the CAP is all the fiddling and fraud that takes place in the Common Market? Is he further aware that last night the Minister of State, Treasury admitted that the Mafia was being investigated because it was saying that there were so many hundred olive trees in Italy, when they existed on paper only? Is he aware also that Northern Irish farmers are sending cattle across the border so many times in order to get increased export rebates that the cattle almost know the way themselves?

Mr. Gummer: It must be an amazement to the House that the hon. Gentleman belongs to a party which had a

reputation for being internationalist. His constant attacks on anyone who happens to live abroad are becoming bywords.

Mr. Marlow: In which areas in which the Community is currently in surplus does my right hon. Friend expect surpluses to be reduced this year?

Mr. Gummer: One would not expect changes in agriculture to take place rapidly. Any one who understands the farming industry realises that the crops for this year have already been planted. Therefore, my hon. Friend will accept that the changes that will be made, and the attack on the surplus that will take place, cannot result in a change in this year's harvest.

Mr. Deakins: Will the Minister condemn the European Commission for putting forward price proposals which break the financial guidelines which the House was told by the Government last year were binding on the Council and the Commission?

Mr. Gummer: We are in the business of winning the point. We have to solve the problems of surpluses within the financial guidelines laid down and within the competence of British farmers to provide their fair share of the burden. I am not one of those who go around condemning what has been done. I am seeking an answer.

Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister agree that one of the most effective ways of controlling surpluses is through variable premiums, such as is used in the beef sector? Can he assure us that the beef variable premium will be negotiated successfully at this round?

Mr. Gummer: As we are in the business of negotiating the kind of assurance which the hon. Gentleman wishes in advance, he cannot expect me to sum it up in those words. We are going into these negotiations intending, as we have in the past, to defend the beef variable premium, which is of great importance to the British farmer.

Mr. John: Will the Minister tell the House, in whatever time scale crops need to be harvested, whether cereal surpluses will come down within the next three years?

Mr. Gummer: It is the Government's firm intention to fight for policies which will bring down cereal surpluses, not just in three years, but as soon as possible. That means that we must start on it now. The hon. Gentleman must accept—

Mr. Torney: We want facts.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman asks for facts, but one of the facts of farming life is that one does not know what the weather will be like. It shows how little Opposition Members know about agriculture. The fact is that surpluses can be fundamentally altered by whether or not we have a good grain growing period.

Food from Britain

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future funding of Food from Britain.

Mr. Jopling: I have made clear the extent of Government support for Food from Britain until 1991 provided industry is also willing to contribute. Discussions on industry funding are continuing and I am hopeful that satisfactory arrangements will be agreed soon.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister regard it as satisfactory that the budget for Food from Britain is being cut from £6·3 million to £4·8 million in the forthcoming year? Will the Minister step in to make good this shortfall, or will he allow this attempt to promote British foods abroad languish through lack of finances and lack of Government backing?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. He will remember that originally the Government promised £14 million over the first five years as pump-priming funds. Out of that arrangement, there remains for 1986–87 the £3 million that was promised, and that will be paid. For 1987–88 there is £2 million, which will be paid.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that in agriculture there is always satisfactory funding for everyone except farm workers? Is he aware that farm workers now receive a basic wage of £89 a week? That is for a week, not the figures which are usually given for a week and a half, including overtime. When will the Minister answer the justified demands of the farm workers union for a decent living wage for the profits that its members have created?

Mr. Speaker: That was a bit wide of funding Food from Britain.

Mr. Jopling: I was wondering by what stretch of the imagination that supplementary question could attach itself to this question, which is about Food from Britain. If Food from Britain is allowed, as I hope it will be, to continue its good work, that will be in the interests of farmers, farm workers, the consumer and the taxpayer alike.

Sir John Farr: I remind my right hon. Friend that Food from Britain was launched when our food supply was more or less in equilibrium. Is there not now a need to strengthen our export efforts as we have a large surplus in most commodities?

Mr. Jopling: I agree with my hon. Friend. He has put his finger on it. It is important, as marketing becomes more and more essential, that the industry should—as I know it is trying to do—give Food from Britain its full support so that it may do its job properly.

Mr. Home Robertson: How can Food from Britain survive as an effective organisation in the present circumstances? I agree with the Minister that the industry ought to provide more funds for it, but failing that, how can it survive? Is it the Department's intention to guarantee the future of Food from Britain? If not, how can we have an effective organisation to promote the sale of food from Britain at home and abroad?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman should recall that last October I announced that when the £14 million pump-priming funds ran out in 1987–88, up to £2·5 million would be available in each of the subsequent years to 1990–91, and that would be done on the basis of £1 for every £2 from industry. The industry greeted the announcement with a great deal of enthusiasm and gratitude, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so carping about it.

Fisheries Protection

Mr. Terry Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many boardings by United Kingdom fishery protection vessels took place in the month of January.

Mr. Gummer: During January 1986, 115 vessels were boarded by United Kingdom fishery protection vessels.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister accept that those figures include only 17 boardings of Spanish vessels, but 56 boardings of British vessels? Does that not give the impression that British fishing is not being adequately protected by the Minister, despite all the promises that he has made?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman, who relies on such an impression, has not looked at the facts. The system that we have imposed is widely accepted by fishermen as being extremely effective. One of the fishing vessels which was boarded and found guilty was fined heavily. The French give us information about every boat that passes through their waters, so that we can track them extremely carefully. There is no doubt in my mind that we can control the entry of Spanish fishing vessels into our waters, and that the common fisheries policy is a major success.

Mr. Harris: I applaud the attitude of my right hon. Friend in trying to clamp down on illegal Spanish fishing, especially off Cornwall, but will he confirm my impression that there has been a sharp decrease in the number of arrests during the past few weeks, and give an assurance that there will be no let-up in the drive against illegal fishing by Spain in the south-west?

Mr. Gummer: There will be no let-up whatsoever. That is why we have increased the number of surveillances and the amount of resources available. My hon. Friend has pressed me on the matter, and I continue to say that. The fact is that if people keep the rules and we have tight rules, and if our system works closely with that of our French and Irish colleagues, we can stop ships breaking the law and bring them to court. That is what has been happening.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Is the Minister aware of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee report on fishery protection, which recommends that Scottish courts should punish illegal fishing with the same severity as the Norwegian courts do? What does he think about that recommendation as applied to English courts?

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman studies recent fines imposed by English courts, especially in the southwest, he will see that they have been exemplary and heavy and have caused a decline in the amount of illegal fishing. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) will agree on that. I cannot comment on the effects in the Scottish courts, because that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the importance of fishery patrols, can the Minister give an assurance that with the disappearance of the metropolitan authorities, either bodies such as the Lancashire and North-Western Sea Fisheries will receive alternative funds, or there will be alternative structures to safeguard their activity?

Mr. Gummer: It is for members of the body to decide whether they wish to continue on it. We have examined


the activities of that body carefully, and, we will ensure that none of the necessary activities for the proper control of fisheries will fall into desuetude if they are not covered elsewhere.

Dr. Godman: Is the Minister aware that one of the recommendations in the Scottish Affairs Select Committee report on fisheries protection refers to the replacement of the fisheries protection vessel Noma? Will the Minister urge on his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the advisability of that replacement vessel being built by Ferguson Ailsa in Port Glasgow?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have to make up his mind on that, and that it is not an area in which I can make recommendations to him.

Mr. Kennedy: When the Minister considers his Department's response to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee report which was published yesterday, will he, in particular, adopt the practice in Norway, so that third country vessels must notify the DAFS direct, instead of simply notifying Brussels, so that a more efficient, but not over-bureaucratic, scheme can monitor foreign vessels near our shores?

Mr. Gummer: I will look at that point. I remind the hon. Gentleman that European Community vessels, including Spanish vessels, have to give direct information as they pass into the British sector from the French sector, and they provide similar information to the French. In that way we have been able to keep very close control over their movements. I will certainly examine the matter closely.

Mr. Randall: Does the Minister agree that his attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) was totally unjustified, as the figures that my hon. Friend quoted were given to me by the Minister in a written answer on 24 February? Will he confirm that the number of boardings of United Kingdom vessels in January was comparable to the number of boardings of the rest of the EEC fleet put together? Should the Minister not be directing his attention and efforts towards the countries which have a track record of abuse, rather than bashing British fishermen?

Mr. Gummer: My answer and the figures were absolutely correct. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's presence today. He was absent from the debate on salmon fishing earlier in the week, which appeared to have been hi-jacked by the Scots. There are two ways of ensuring that we are successful in our policing. The first is to bring large numbers of people before the courts. Alternatively, people should obey the law. I was right to tell the hon. Gentleman that his impression was wrong and that he does not know the facts.

Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

Mr. Fallon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will relocate the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.

Mr. Jopling: I am currently considering this question.

Mr. Fallon: Why have so many of these quangos been allowed to set up camp along the Thames Valley? Would it not be cheaper to move the board to the north of England and thereby provide much-needed jobs into the bargain?

Mr. Jopling: I rather guessed that my hon. Friend would ask that question. I assure him that if a move were proposed, the merits of alternative locations, including the north-east of England, would be considered.

Mr. Home Robertson: As the board's stocks of cereals doubled to 5·7 million tonnes and its stocks of beef increased to 85,000 tonnes last year, will the Minister reconsider the way in which those stocks are relocated? Why not give the British consumer the benefit of some of those stocks instead of handing them out cheaply to the Russians?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will know very well that I have for a long time expressed similar concern about the level of surplus stocks within the Community. However, that matter is not within the question, which is about relocating the intervention board.

Agricultural Land

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of land at present farmed he estimates will be surplus to agricultural needs by 1990.

Mr. Jopling: Further measures clearly need to be taken within the Community to cut back production of commodities now in surplus. I see this as leading to changes in the existing pattern of land use in agriculture and forestry, rather than to the creation of substantial areas of land which are no longer in production.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many authorities in the industry believe that about 10 per cent. of current production will be surplus to requirements by 1990? Will that not present the farming industry with its greatest challenge and opportunity for more than half a century? Will it not need a structure on which it can plan for the future, and will my right hon. Friend provide such a structure?

Mr. Jopling: Yes, I think that we must give serious thought to the possibility that there may be a need for a change of land use in that way. It is very dangerous to be too specific about that. Any changes will depend on a number of factors, such as the nature and level of Community support, the level of Community and world demand for temperate foodstuffs, the relative efficiency of our industry, technological improvements that might take place and the extent to which other countries outside the community, particularly the United States, are successful in developing their agricultural policies.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that he is dealing with the problem of food surpluses without mentioning cutting prices. I urge him to persuade the Government to call for a world food conference to try to deal with this problem, which cannot be dealt with either in the United Kingdom or in Europe alone.

Mr. Jopling: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind. If I have not said it already, I fear that I must


tell my hon. Friend now that I see no prospect of reducing the huge surpluses of foodstuffs in the Community unless we have a stringent price policy.

Mr. Hardy: Is there not a case for substantial and immediate higher priority to be conferred on conservation? Does the situation not justify serious consideration being given to the additional production of cellulose on non-arable land?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman is right to think that environmentally sensitive areas should play an important part in the business of land use. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as any other hon. Member the initiatives that the Government have taken in the Community and which are enshrined in the legislation before the House to provide for environmentally sensitive areas. I hope that we shall be able to set the ESAs before too long. I think that that goes a long way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Hicks: If consideration is to be given to taking land out of production deliberately, does my right hon. Friend agree that attention must be given to the impact of that on the stability of rural areas?

Mr. Jopling: That is correct. That is why I said in my original answer that we should look for changes in the existing pattern of land use rather than to the creation of substantial areas of land which are no longer in production.

Mr. John: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in 1990, which is the year to which the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) referred, only five ESAs will exist? In view of the difficulties in changing agriculture production patterns, is it not time that the Minister stated the level of forestry and alternative crops that will be available to farming at that time?

Mr. Jopling: We have said that we hope, in the first instance, to set up five ESAs. The hon. Gentleman has welcomed that move. That is for this year. What may be done in future years is a matter for future decision.

Mr. Rathbone: Whatever the surpluses may be, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the policies presently applied to encourage—not to allow —the growing of opium-producing poppies as a cash crop in Britain without any sense of responsibility in relation to how that crop might encourage the misuse of drugs? The rest of the Government are trying to contain that problem.

Mr. Jopling: We are looking into these matters. I am sure the House agrees that we must not do anything that allows illegal drugs to become more freely available.

Mr. Latham: What does my right hon. Friend expect farmers to grow instead of surplus barley — trees or caravans? Is it not high time that we had a strategic document spelling out the way in which agriculture is supposed to go?

Mr. Jopling: I am sure that my hon. Friend has heard me say on many occasions that I believe that it is necessary for us to consider carefully the opportunity to grow more trees. I hope that he has seen the consultative document that we issued some months ago on encouraging more farm woodlands.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Maclennan.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that allowing every village and small town of fewer than 7,000 people to expand its housing stock by 10 per cent. would be the most advantageous way of using our surplus land?

Mr. Jopling: Yes, I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that where housing needs to be provided, one should go to every possible extent to find suitable land for development.

Land Drainage and Coast Protection

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his review of finance and administration of land drainage and coast protection will be complete.

Mr. Gummer: Our aim is to complete the review as soon as possible.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why were the conservation aspects of land drainage not addressed in the Government's most recent Green Paper on land drainage? Could the reason be that the argument between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food still rages and, as a result, no clear decisions can be taken? As privatisation now seems to be on the agenda, may we have assurances that there will be a new Green Paper and the fullest possible consultation on conservation aspects?

Mr. Gummer: The answer to the first part of the question is no, Sir. The answer to the second part is that there will be the fullest possible consultation on conservation interests.

Mr. Rathbone: Contrary to the politically inspired question by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), may I ask what my right hon. Friend is doing about the pressing need for coastal defence work along the coastline in Sussex around Seaford? This community is waiting upon certain bodies. Will my hon. Friend reconsider the parsimonious allocation this year?

Mr. Gummer: I shall look carefully at this matter. In my area of Anglia similar problems arise, and no firm decisions have yet been taken, but we are aware of my hon. Friend's concern and that of local authorities.

Mr. Home Robertson: As the Secretary of State for the Environment told the House on 5 February that land drainage and flood protection were the one responsibility of local authorities that would not be privatised, what residual public water authority will assume these responsibilities? I presume that the right hon. Gentleman must have a considerable constituency interest.

Mr. Gummer: I have important ministerial and constituency interests. When the time comes for us to continue our discussions, we shall produce some answers to that question.

Mr. Freud: When it comes to coastal protection, would it not be infinitely fairer if this were charged on central Government funds instead of on local ratepayers and water authorities?

Mr. Gummer: There are those who put that view, but there is also an argument and a case to say that those who benefit most particularly should make some major contribution towards it.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious situation in my constituency, at Horsey? Will he give urgent attention to the problem of coastal protection there?

Mr. Gummer: This is primarily a matter for the Anglian water authority, but I shall look particularly at my hon. Friend's concern.

COMA Report

Mr. Jim Callaghan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends consultation on his proposals following the COMA report to be concluded; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer: We have asked for comments on the labelling proposals announced on 13 February to be submitted by 1 May of this year.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for his answer, but will he consider requesting, by law, manufacturers to label foods with polyunsaturated fats, as recommended in the COMA report?

Mr. Gummer: We have, of course, already accepted that it will be necessary by law to insist on fat content labelling, but one cannot restrict it to that. The intention is to provide the housewife or consumer with a range of information, much of which will be given voluntarily by food manufacturers. We hope to provide in this consultation a framework so that information given on different products will be readily understandable. The Ministry and the hon. Gentleman are very much on the same side.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Do we not spend billions of pounds on eating to make ourselves unhealthy, and then spend billions of more pounds, which we find increasingly hard to muster, on patching ourselves up after these excesses? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend undertake to have a word with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Chief Secretary about these "Ubuesque" arrangements, and put it to them that a rather more generous budget for research into how we can produce the elements for a healthy diet, vegetables for example, might rapidly be justified by significant, consequential savings on expenditure on the Health Service?

Mr. Gummer: I have not noticed any shortage of healthy food. Healthy food is available. However, the housewife and the consumer must be in a position to choose what he or she wants to buy. This Government are concerned about providing them with that information. The choice must be theirs. We do not want a nanny state which tells people what they ought to eat.

Poultrymeat

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the arrangements for poultrymeat exports to the United States of America.

Mr. Gummer: Discussions with the United States authorities on access to their market are proceeding.

Mr. Cockeram: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance of this industry to rural areas such as Ludlow,

where poultrymeat exports provide a substantial element of employment? Will he bear this in mind during the negotiations?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is quite right when he speaks of the importance of this country's poultry industry and its need to secure access to the largest number of markets. During his recent visit to the United States my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food raised these matters with the Agriculture Department there. We shall seek to do our best to defend and extend the opportunities for the British poultry industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the National Pensioners Convention.

Mr. Bidwell: Does the right hon. Lady realise that the pensioners' lobby today indicates not only deep anxiety among our old folk but deep anxiety about them in the nation as a whole? Does she further realise that if the Government had clung to the Labour Government's formula of uprating pensions according to the cost of living or national average earnings, the pensioner and his dependent wife would be £6·50 better off today? Why does the hon. Lady not address her mind to this question? She will hear about it later from the Trades Union Congress. Would this not be a handy sum with which old people could meet their fuel bills instead of freezing to death?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the previous Government's policies led to the International Monetary Fund and to peak inflation, the highest that this country has ever known. This Government kept their pledge to protect pensions against the rise in prices. In fact, pensions have increased by nine percentage points more than prices and we have brought down the inflation that destroyed the savings of pensioners in the 1970s.

Mr. Dorrell: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider whether sterling should join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system? Is she aware that Mr. Sam Brittan has argued that this could allow us to reduce the level of interest rates prevailing in Britain? Does she agree that, by any definition, sterling is now more competitive since the decline in the exchange rate in recent weeks and that it may therefore be, in the time-honoured phrase, that the time is ripe for sterling to become a member of the exchange rate mechanism?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I am asked this question regularly, usually on the basis that "now" is the time to go in. I was asked it when the pound bought DM 3.70. It now buys about DM 3.20. Those who asked that question then must be rather glad that we did not go in, because we should have suffered rather


grievously if we had. One day, when we think that the time is appropriate, we shall join the EMS. We do not think that it is appropriate to do so at the moment.

Mr. Kinnock: When the Prime Minister meets the pensioners' delegation this afternoon, will she explain to them why she is deliberately ensuring that the value of the old-age pension next year will be 3 per cent. less in real terms than it is this year? Is that not a deliberate betrayal of her pledge to protect the poor and those who are most in need?

The Prime Minister: I shall explain to them that the pension has gone up by nine percentage points more than prices, that we have kept our pledges to the pensioners and that if we were to accept all of the National Pensioners Convention proposals the cost would be at least £20 billion a year. That would add at least £16 a week to the national insurance contributions of those on average earnings as well as requiring substantial increases in income tax and value added tax. That, and a lot more, I shall explain.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister must surely know that if she claims that pensions have gone up in real terms by 9 per cent. under her Government, they went up by 20 per cent. in real terms under the last Labour Government. As she is so fond of referring to the record of the last Labour Government, why does she not have the decency to match it?

The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to go back to the inflationary policies of the last Labour Government. That is the way to destroy the savings of pensioners. What the last Labour Government were prepared to do was to create inflation, claim big pension increases and pay for those pension increases by debasing the savings of pensioners. We will not carry out such a dishonest policy.

Mr. Forth: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the statement by President Botha of South Africa on the ending of the state of emergency in his country? Does she believe that this vindicates our policy of continuing to talk to the South Africans, and does she now expect the Opposition parties to welcome the statement as a further advance in the country of South Africa?

The Prime Minister: I welcome very warmly President Botha's decision to lift the state of emergency in South Africa. I hope that it will lead to reduced tension and that it will bring nearer the prospect of a genuine dialogue between the South African Government and black South Africans.

Mr. Loyden: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people will view the decision taken in the High Court yesterday as a further attack on local democracy —[Interruption.] It is she and her Government who should be before the courts to answer for the misery and hardship which she and her Government have imposed upon 750,000 people in Lambeth and Liverpool by savage cuts in the local government expenditure of authorities which are trying to remedy the damage which she and her Government are doing to inner cities.

The Prime Minister: Government and local government are answerable to the courts, as everyone who believes in the rule of law knows.

Mr. Grylls: If I may revert to the question of pensions, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy on inflation is the best way of protecting pensioners and their savings, and that we should not be deflected from sticking to that course, which is a way of giving them honest money?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholly with my hon. Friend. There has to be the certainty that Governments will run prudent financial policies and therefore get stability in their financial dealings.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When suggestions are again made, as they already have been made this afternoon, that we should return to the miseries and follies of a fixed exchange rate for sterling, will the Prime Minister remain deaf to these unwise promptings?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman heard my reply earlier. These suggestions are made regularly. I think that, had we listened to them earlier, we would have found ourselves in some difficulty in view of the fluctuation in exchange rates which inevitably comes through having a currency rather different from those in the rest of Europe. We must continue to take that factor into account.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Proctor: When my right hon. Friend meets the National Pensioners Convention this afternoon, will she explain to it that the inflationary policies of Her Majesty's Opposition will crucify the savings of pensioners?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will do just that. Not only that, but if we ever returned to a period when inflation went up sharply by 25 per cent. or so, to put up the pension by that amount may increase its value for a few days, but it would rapidly lose that value as inflation ate away the increase.

Dr. Owen: Does the Prime Minister draw no lessons from the last couple of months from the way that many pensioners did freeze in the very cold spell when heating allowances were shown to be inadequate? [Interruption.] Hon. Members can jeer but there must be many of their constituents who suffered greviously. Surely the Prime Minister will at least try to change this situation by next year.

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government's record on payments for heating is far better than that of the Government of which he was a member. The facts show that. He cannot possibly get over that, no matter how much he trys to wave it away with his hand. It is because he has not got the answer that he asks such stupid questions.

Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the projected population increase in Britain to the end of the century is 1 million. Is she aware that the population of the world has risen by 1 million in the past five days? What plans does she have to meet that growing demand for the world's resources.

The Prime Minister: The growth of world population is discussed in international forums, particularly when we deal with our aid programmes. My hon. Friend will understand that we try to help those programmes that are designed to reduce the increase.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Prime Minister aware that every hon. Member is being badgered every day about the Shops Bill? In order to influence hon. Members before they vote, will she arrange for the Second Reading of the Bill to take place at 9.30 am on a Sunday, in the same way as we meet on a Friday, and, so that we may experience the effects of the Transport Act 1985, will she arrange for everybody to get here by public transport?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I think that I have got it. I think that it was in favour of extra choice in Sunday trading.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend find a moment today, or before the end of the week, to have a word with my right hon. Friend sitting on her right, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and inquire of him why in the world British farmers are encouraged to grow opium poppies as a cash crop in the face of all the other admirable activities of her Government to fight drug misuse?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend says that he is looking into it. Strenuous efforts are made to ensure that the growth of that crop, necessary for pharmaceutical drugs, cannot be turned to illegal use.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Prime Minister give urgent attention to the plight of sacked miners? Is she aware that there are 11 from my constituency, 74 from my county of Durham and 520 nationally, that many of them have won their appeals through industrial tribunals and that many have been acquitted by the courts? Before she adopts a Pontius Pilate role, saying that is a matter for the National Coal Board, will she realise that the re-employment of

those miners will be the biggest single step that can be taken to begin to restore good relations in the coal industry, and will she bring pressure to bear on the Coal Board to do that?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman in part anticipated my reply. Of course it is a matter for the NCB, but I understand that one case is before the courts, to which I can make no reference. That is a matter for the courts to decide. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the important thing is to have an efficient coal industry. Productivity has increased enormously. It needs to increase a good deal further, particularly with the fall in the price of oil, which has to compete with coal. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, despite the improved performance, the taxpayer will still put about £1·5 billion into the coal industry this year.

Mr. Martin: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martin: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a scandal that some pensioners have died from hypothermia, some are living below the poverty line and some cannot turn on the heating because they fear the very high electricity and gas charges? What will the Prime Minister do for our elderly citizens?

The Prime Minister: I gave the figures in answer to another question, but I shall repeat them. When the Labour Government were in power, the amount available for heating addition was £90 million. In 1979 deaths from hypothermia were at the highest level ever. Since then we have increased the amount available for heating to £400 million and there are amounts for severe weather payments. May I also remind the hon. Gentleman that in the lifetime of the Labour. Government the price of electricity went up by 6 per cent. every four months and that under this Government the price of electricity has gone up only by 6 per cent. in three years? So pensioners have had a far better deal under this Government than they ever had under a Labour Government.

British Leyland

Mr. Stan Thorne: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement regarding Lancashire Enterprise Ltd.'s firm indication of interest in respect of the purchase of British Leyland.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Paul Channon): I understand from BL that Hill Samuel has offered a meeting this week with Lancashire Enterprise Ltd. to explore further the nature of its proposals following its preliminary expression of interest indicated to Hill Samuel on 4 March.

Mr. Thorne: That reply comes to me as a surprise, particularly if we refer to the statement made yesterday in the House by the Secretary of State, from which I quote:
The deputation was given a full opportunity to declare a firm indication of interest but it did not do so.
In reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please paraphrase?

Mr. Thorne: By inviting me to paraphrase, Mr. Speaker, you are inviting me to do what the Secretary of State did yesterday—deliberately or otherwise to mislead the House. I do not wish to do that, so I am quoting what the Secretary of State said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the rules.

Mr. Thorne: I shall read, because I am talking about what the Secretary of State said.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) knows that we have a very busy day ahead of us. Will he please get on with his supplementary question?

Mr. Thorne: I am doing my best to be brief, Mr. Speaker, but if you continue to interrupt I shall be in difficulty. In regard to LEL, the Secretary of State said:
every assistance was given to it to try to get it into a position to make a firm indication of interest, but I understand that by last night it had not given any such indications."—[Official Report, 5 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 312–16.]
That statement was made by the Secretary of State in spite of the fact that LEL, the firm I am talking about, had already sent a telex to Hill Samuel which read as follows—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I granted the hon. Gentleman a private notice question, not an Adjournment debate. He must ask a question, please.

Mr. Thorne: You draw attention to the fact that you granted the private notice question, Mr. Speaker. I assume that you did so on the basis of my being able at least to give the facts to the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. Will the hon. Gentleman please ask a question?

Mr. Thorne: If I were to ask a short question of the Secretary of State, it would be why he misled the House

yesterday but, to do that, I have to demonstrate the basis for my claim that he misled the House. That is why I shall read to you, Mr. Speaker, the telex that was sent to Hill Samuel at 6.25 pm on 4 March. It said:
This telex is intended to formally confirm that interest prior to tonight's deadline".
In other works, LEL got its name before Hill Samuel before the midnight deadline on 4 March.

Mr. Channon: I did not mislead the House yesterday. I have checked carefully what I said yesterday, and it was wholly accurate. By the appropriate night, Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. had not put in a firm intention to make a bid which those whom I described to the House yesterday had done. Nevertheless, Hill Samuel has helpfully offered a meeting. It seems to me that that is a helpful suggestion, not an unhelpful one, and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is making a fuss.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pressure for consideration of LEL's offer has the support of all parties on Lancashire county council, including the Conservative party, and the support of my Conservative-controlled borough council? Does he agree that, in view of the wide disparity between the time allocated for General Motors to consider the matter and that available for other bidders, some flexibility should be granted when a definite interest is involved, such as my right hon. Friend has generously been able to do in relation to Leyland Bus?

Mr. Channon: There should be the meeting which Hill Samuel has suggested with LEL, and then all these matters can be examined.

Mr. Jack Straw: Is not the Secretary of State aware that one of the reasons why Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. was not able to declare a "firm indication of interest"—the right hon. Gentleman's words—until late on Tuesday night was that Hill Samuel had repeatedly refused to grant it the necessary documentation to put together proposals? Although we are glad to learn that, at this late stage, the Secretary of State has relented, as has Hill Samuel, to declare that negotiations with LEL must go ahead, will he instruct Hill Samuel to give LEL exactly the same documentation as was received by General Motors?

Mr. Channon: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not exactly true. Unlike all the other people, LEL has not signed a confidentiality agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has not been asked."] It most certainly has been asked. There were telephone conversations last week, and still no action was taken. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid that he is grossly exaggerating the situation. Nevertheless, Hill Samuel has offered a meeting. That seems an extremely helpful way forward. We should see what happens.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Of the offers that were in by the deadline, especially that of Lonrho, did any involve the introduction to Land Rover of a high technology plant?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is out of order. The private notice question relates to Lancashire Enterprises Ltd.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the Minister now answer this question directly? As the giant American consortium General Motors has had 18 months to put its


bid together, will he give the House a clear indication that this bid, which is British and local, will not be —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. All this takes up a great deal of time.

Mr. Ashdown: I will have my question. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the bid, which is British and local, will not be decided on the grounds of a technicality?

Mr. Channon: I made the position clear regarding General Motors yesterday. Nothing has changed since 3.30 yesterday afternoon. In fact, Hill Samuel offered a meeting with Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. at 11 o'clock yesterday morning. When I came into the Chamber, no reply had been received. It seemed to me a helpful step that there should be a meeting to allow them to get on with it.

Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend might agree that there are few more nauseating noises than those made by someone who wants an American takeover one week and a British flag-waving operation the next. Leaving that aside, can my right hon. Friend help me? He has not yet managed to convince me that the Government are genuinely even-handed in their assessment of the General Motors bid as opposed to this bid and the other British bids. He has not yet managed to convince me that genuine equality of information has been offered for this bidder and for the other British bidders as opposed to the information offered to General Motors. Could he please try harder?

Mr. Channon: I tried hard at the same time yesterday afternoon to satisfy my hon. Friend. I am happy to come down every afternoon and do my best. I can only repeat the answer that I gave my hon. Friend yesterday, which assured him that we were treating all the firm indications of bids with extreme care.

Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State will understand that we are looking forward with interest to his daily appearances next week. Before then, can he answer two simple questions? First, is it not the

case that Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. showed its firm interest before what he called the "close of play"? Secondly, what is the purpose of this meeting? Will it be open to the Government to receive a bid from Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. as a result of what transpires at the meeting? Will he please answer that yes or no?

Mr. Channon: It is clear that LEL did not put in a firm intention to make a bid by the appropriate time. However, at the same time, it did put in a telex which I have described to the House and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand from Hill Samuel that the purpose of the meeting which it suggested was to explore all those points. If suitable assurances can be found, I would not wish to rule out anyone on a technicality.

Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise directly out of questions?

Mr. Butterfill: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it, then.

Mr. Butterfill: You will have heard the question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), Mr. Speaker, relating to the dismissal of local councillors and you may have seen early-day motion 547 in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) calling for the dismissal of the judges who disqualified those councillors.
[That this House regards with grave concern the decision of Mr. Justice Glidewell, Mr. Justice Caulfield and Mr. Justice Russell to disqualify democratically elected councillors from Liverpool and Lambeth: notes that judges are themselves appointed and not elected; and calls for the immediate dismissal of these judges.]
Is it not a gross abuse of this House to use an early-day motion to call for the dismissal of judges whose duty it is to uphold the laws made by the House?

Mr. Speaker: It is perfectly in order. In fact, the only way in which it is possible to criticise a judge is to put down a motion.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock (: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 10 MARCH—Debate on a motion to take note of the 1986 farm price proposals and the proposed milk outgoers scheme. Details of relevant EC documents will be given in the Official Report.

Debate on a motion on the second report of the Privileges Committee in Session 1984–85 (House of Commons paper No. 555).

TUESDAY 11 MARCH—Until about Seven o'clock debate on a motion to take note of EC document 5635/85 relating to a common policy and liberalisation of shipping. Details of relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

Motions on the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order and the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.

At Ten o'clock the Question will be put on all outstanding supplementary Estimates and Votes.

WEDNESDAY 12 MARCH — Opposition Day (10th Allotted Day). Until about Seven o'clock a debate entitled "The City" followed by a debate entitled "Support for Students in Further and Higher Education". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Afterwards, a debate on a motion to take note of EC documents relating to Community steel. Details of the documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.

THURSDAY 13 MARCH — Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.

FRIDAY 14 MARCH—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 17 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Gas Bill (1st Allotted Day).

The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday 27 March until Tuesday 8 April.

[Monday 10 March

CAP PRICE FIXING

Relevant European Documents


(a) 10174/85
Milk production: outgoers scheme


(b) 8480/85
Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy


(c) 5098/86
Corrigendum to 8480/85


(d) 4130/86
Future of Community Agriculture


(e) 10492/85
Reform of Cereals Regime


(f) 4150/86
Beef Regime


(g) 4075/86
Report on situation in agricultural markets 1985


(h) 4963/86
CAP Prices 1986–87

Debate on Tuesday 11 March

SHIPPING

Relevant European Document


(i) 5635/85
Maritime transport policy

Wednesday 12 March

STEEL OBJECTIVES

Relevant European Documents



(j) 5194/84
Steel industry objectives for 1985


(k) 8293/85
Community steel policy after 1985


(l) 9300/85
Steel production quotas


(m) 9301/85
Aid to the steel industry after 1985


(n) 8779/85
Social measures in the coal and steel industries: Contributions to the ECSC Budget,1985–1987


(o) 4493/86
Compensatory measures against United States restrictions on certain steel imports

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 21-iii (1985–86) paragraph 2.
(b) HC 5-xxx (1984–85) paragraph 10.
(c) HC 21-xiii (1985–86) paragraph 1.
(d) HC 21-ix (1985–86) paragraph 1.
(e) HC 21-vii (1985–86) paragraph 2.
(f) HC 21-x (1985–86) paragraph 3.
(g) HC 21-xiii (1985–86) paragraph 1.
(h) HC 21-xiii (1985–86) paragraph 1.
(i) HC 5-xxi (1984–85) paragraph 5.
(j) HC 78-xxii (1983–84) paragraph 2.
(k) HC 5-xxx (1984–85) paragraph 9.
(l) HC 5-xxxi (1984–85) paragraph 6.
(m) HC 5-xxxi (1984–85) paragraph 6.
(n) HC 21-iv (1985–86) paragraph 1.
(o) HC 21-viii (1985–86) paragraph 2.]

Mr. Kinnock: I am tempted to ask the Leader of the House whether he will take up the kindly offer of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to provide us with daily statements on the continuing saga of the British Leyland affair. If we have daily statements, they will have to be made before the close of play and we shall have to call the period injury time.
In answering questions yesterday, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refused repeatedly to give a time scale or timetable for the sale of Land Rover, Freight Rover, Leyland Trucks and related businesses. Today's press reports suggest that the Government plan to complete the sale by Easter. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether that is true? Will he ensure that in any event the House is given time to debate the matter before we rise for the Easter recess on 27 March?
In view of the sentiments expressed by a senior spokesman for the President of the United States about that Administration's hostility towards Nicaragua and its readiness to contemplate the use of military force against that country, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a statement next week on the Government's attitude towards President Reagan's policy? If his policy was carried into effect, it would pose a further threat to the stability of the central American region.
In view of the apparently well-founded story in this morning's edition of the Financial Times about proposals for narrowly limiting the future programme content and powers of the BBC, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no action will be taken in that direction until the House has had a chance to consider it and to raise objections to it?

Mr. Biffen: The time scale and timetable, to quote the words of the Leader of the Opposition, for the handling of Leyland were outlined yesterday in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
As for a debate on the matter this side of the Eager recess, perhaps that is something that we can consider


through the usual channels. I shall convey to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety that he should make a statement on the policy of the United States towards Nicaragua.
Finally, I must confess that I do not have the same zeal for reading the capitalist press as the right hon. Gentleman and I have not seen the references in the Financial Times to the future of the BBC. However, I am sure that it is a subject that would merit debate in the House.

Mr. Tom Sackville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House has not yet received satisfactory answers to the issue of the 200 acres of opium poppies that are said to have been grown experimentally this year? Does not this growing of opium poppies make nonsense of the Government's eradication programme overseas as well as of the attempts of the police and Customs and Excise to interdict the importation of heroin? Will my right hon. Friend allocate time to debate this issue fully?

Mr. Biffen: I must confess that I came into the Chamber with a virginal innocence about opium poppy growing in the United Kingdom. It seems pre-eminently a matter to be raised during the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. David Alton: Although I regret the official Opposition's decision not to support our request for a debate on the future of historic buildings and monuments, especially Kenwood House at Hampstead heath, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on our prayer in a Committee of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I certainly hope that we could make arrangements for it to be debated upstairs.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am not asking for a debate next week on early-day motion 280 which now has the support of 170 hon. Members—
[That this House notes the widespread concern felt in Parliament by eminent scientists, by other responsible observers and by members of the public who have viewed programmes on the matter screened by Channel 4, that Anne Maguire, Patrick Maguire (senior) Vincent Maguire (then aged 17), Patrick Maguire (then aged 14), Sean Smyth, Patrick O'Neill and the late Giuseppe Conlon, sentenced in 1976 to long terms of imprisonment since served, now appear, despite confirmation of their convictions at the time by the Court of Appeal, to have been entirely innocent of the crime with which they were charged; further notes at the conclusion of debate in the other place on 17th May 1985, the recognition by the Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Home Office of the strength of feeling on this matter in that House and his pledge to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what had been said; and therefore earnestly urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the interests of the highest standards of British justice of which this country needs to feel rightly proud, to move without delay for a review of these convictions, either under the provisions of section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, or by such other public process of review as he may deem appropriate to this disturbing case.]—
but I am asking him to ensure that we have an early statement from the Home Secretary or perhaps a Law

Officer of the Crown to allay the growing misgivings in the House and the country about the miscarriage of justice in the Maguire case?

Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's central role in raising a wide degree of parliamentary interest in this topic. I will refer his request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Meanwhile, I hope that he will not totally dismiss the possibility of using the Consolidated Fund as providing an opportunity to raise the matter.

Mr. Guy Barnett: As joint treasurer of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which you, Mr. Speaker, are president and the Prime Minister is the chairman, may I draw attention to early-day motion 528?
[That this House joins with all other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth in the observance of Commonwealth Day on Monday 10th March 1986; and recognises the importance of the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which brings together parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth who share a community of interest and the positive ideals of parliamentary democracy.]
Is the Leader of the House prepared to associate the Government and this House with that expression of Commonwealth good will in connection with Commonwealth day on Monday? Will he take this opportunity to welcome Commonwealth parliamentarians from all over the world who are presently our guests?

Mr. Biffen: As long as we understand that the Commonwealth is fairly intangible in its implications, I shall be very happy to give my good will to the motion.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for an urgent debate on the vexing question of the entry of child brides into the United Kingdom? When my right hon. Friend is considering such a debate, will he bear in mind that the British section within the Swedish embassy in Tehran, by issuing the visa, has knowingly commissioned a crime in the United Kingdom of unlawful sexual intercourse with girls under the age of 16? It is therefore an accessory before the fact. Such a debate would give us the opportunity of expanding more fully the notion "When in Britain do as the British do or go back to your country of origin."

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. The Home Office has already said that it intends to take action in respect of the child bride issue which has recently become topical. I advise my hon. Friend to seek the many opportunities that he will have to raise this issue on his own account.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House find time in the not-too-distant future for a debate on the subject of building safety standards? A recent written answer I received stated that no fewer than 25,000 people were injured last year in their own homes by coming into contact with glass in door frames, window frames or other matters. It seems clear that the glass is too thin and that our standards are wholly inadequate.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises a point which probably falls within the authority of the Department of


my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I will certainly make sure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the matter.

Mr. Michael Latham: Does the ewelcome absence next week of the Second Reading of the Shops Bill mean that my right hon. Friend might be thinking again on this matter and that it might go down the black hole along with the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill?

Mr. Biffen: That is an interesting speculation. Whatever I say will be read as a coded language to the world outside, but I have to say to my hon. Friend that the answer is, purely and simply, no.

Sir Adam Butler: May I press my right hon. Friend on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham)? There have been newspaper reports to the effect that the Government are having second thoughts. I must ask him to recognise the very strong opposition to the Shops Bill. That opposition has been expressed to almost all Members of this House who have received many letters from their constituents, and there is also opposition within the House.

Mr. Biffen: The planned progress of this legislation is the very opposite of suggesting that the Government propose to abandon it.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Does not the Leader of the House consider it sad that the Government have not made a statement in this House on the assassination of Mr. Olof Palme, the Prime Minister of Sweden? He spent his life striving not only for the betterment of the Swedish people but internationally for peace, justice and the cause of peoples in the Third world.

Mr. Biffen: The precedents that have been observed in this case are absolutely consistent with what has happened on many occasions hitherto. I am sure that in all quarters of the House there will be deep regret about the assassination, and gratification that the British Government were represented at the funeral.

Sir Anthony Grant: I note that the Opposition have, rather surprisingly, chosen a different subject for their Supply day next week, but will my right hon. Friend look favourably on the possibility of a debate in which the Leader of the Opposition will have the opportunity to express his profound thanks to the High Court for doing the job with the loony council that he wanted done?

Mr. Biffen: Given the many roads that I must tread in contrary directions, the best way to answer that is to congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity.

Mr. John Ryman: The Leader of the House has often been asked questions about scandals in the City of London. Could he arrange for a debate to be held in the near future on the Government's competition policy, bearing in mind the chaos in connection with takeover bids, and the extraordinary decisions that are being made by the Director General of Fair Trading? I am thinking in particular of both of the Guinness bids and both of the Argyll bids for Distillers, and the Hanson bid—Lord Hanson happens to be a staunch supporter of the Prime Minister—the Sikorsky-Westland deal, United Biscuits

and many other decisions. They are wholly inconsistent with the avowed policy of first taking public interest into consideration. Will the Minister look into that because it is a serious matter which smells and savours of fraud?

Mr. Biffen: Leaving aside the innuendo, which is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman, if he genuinely wishes to attend to this topic, he will certainly have a chance next week during questions to the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that various London boroughs, including Ealing, Chelsea, and Fulham and Hammersmith, have announced substantial rate reductions following the abolition of the GLC, which doubled the rates when the present Labour group took it over in 1981? May we have an early debate on the matter, and include in it the fact that the GLC is at present giving £81,000 to Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament groups to set up spurious nuclear-free zones in London, and is fighting in the courts to give away £96 million to various other spurious groups? Would not that £96 million be handy in the hands of pensioners to assist in solving their heating problems?

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I can hold out no prospect of such a debate in Government time in the near future. I hope that he will feel that he has the consolation that by the skilful way in which he put the question he has practically made the speech that would have occurred to him if such a debate were held.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of the earlier comments on the surcharges on Lambeth and Liverpool councillors and in the absence of a statement or debate on the matter, the Leader of the House will not be surprised to learn that in the City debate contrasts could well be drawn between the way in which the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer protected the villains of the Johnson Matthey bank, and gave aid and succour to the crooks at Lloyd's who are now in America and elsewhere, having got away with £13 million, and the way in which the 80 councillors stood by their promises, mandate and people and gave the services to their electors which the Government failed to provide.

Mr. Biffen: I note that the hon. Gentleman kindly gives me an indication of what I might hear if I am in my place during next Wednesday's debate, should he be called. He will do the Conservative party a great service if he sets out to be the protector of those who have recently been found guilty in the courts.

Sir John Farr: Can my right hon. Friend say how the House is to be kept informed about the critical multi-fibre arrangement negotiations? Will there be a statement in the House next week after the meting of the Council of Ministers on Monday and Tuesday? If the House is not satisfied that the Government's attitude is sufficiently robust, will he promise an opportunity for an early debate?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have frequently had negotiations about the multi-fibre arrangement and I am certain that the same parliamentary formality will apply on this occasion as has applied hitherto. I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the anxiety that has just been expressed.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The last time that the Leader of the House looked at my early-day motion on Sadler's Wells he made a claim for entry in the "Guinness Book of Records" as the greatest philistine in the House. However, at the same time he said that there was a possibility that he would discuss the matter with the Minister for the Arts. Has he done so?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, and I will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Bearing in mind that the Shops Bill will arouse great bitterness and will be strongly contested in this House, does my right hon. Friend plan that, when the Bill comes before the House, the Government will announce that they are prepared to accept a concession of substance which, while reconciling the law with modern needs, will nevertheless preserve the special character of Sunday?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate that that is a responsibility of the Minister in charge of the Bill. I will certainly draw the Minister's attention to that point.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is an Opposition day ahead of us, and it is only a half day. A large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part. Will hon. Members please put their questions very briefly?

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House seen the report in The Guardian today suggesting that Trafalgar House has been given the green light to take over Vickers of Barrow? As that has implications for thousands of jobs in the county of Cumbria, will he ensure that a statement is made next week which will set out precisely what the position is in relation to these negotiations?

Mr. Biffen: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to that point. I appreciate its importance. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that that Department will be answering questions on Wednesday.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend, in his new-found wisdom, reconsider his suggestion that the Consolidated Fund would provide an appropriate opportunity to debate the question of growing opium poppies? Will he find time for a major debate in Government time to discuss drugs misuse about which the Government are doing so much in so many ways and yet, in this particular area, are running contrary to their own thrust?

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful for the fact that my hon. Friend attributes wisdom to me, although it is slightly tarnished by the suggestion that it is newly found. However, I cannot reasonably and helpfully say more than I have about the possibility of a debate in the next few days.

Mr. Stephen Ross: As the Leader of the House confirmed on the radio last Sunday that the buck finishes with him in the way that we run this place, will he find time next week to come to the third floor of Norman Shaw North and inspect the loos and the windows, and witness the draught from the windows and the lifts that do not work, and do something about them?

Mr. Biffen: I am not intimidated by a question like that. I will gladly do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be an instructive experience for the House and particularly for Oppositon Members to debate matters in which Government policy has been conspicuously successful? Does he feel that a few hours of Government time could be agreeably passed in debating the way in which the fall in the price of oil has been weathered without any catastrophic rise in interest rates or a collapse in sterling?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point and underlines the importance of having a liberal economic structure and liberal foreign exchange rates. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's points, although I confess that I cannot offer an immediate prospect of a debate in Government time. Whenever there is Government time available, his suggestion will be an early candidate for debate.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House ensure that before the House rises for the Easter recess a full and thorough debate is held on the Government's immigration and refugee policy, particularly in the light of revelations earlier this week that one Conservative Member claimed that the real purpose of the Home Secretary's proposed guidelines to immigration controls is to prevent Members of Parliament from taking up immigration cases? Does he not think that that is an extremely serious matter and that the experience of many hon. Members during the Christmas recess, when there was clearly a difference in attitude expressed by the immigration authorities, should not be repeated during the Easter recess? For that reason alone, an urgent debate is necessary.

Mr. Biffen: The way that the hon. Gentleman has put his case does not make me an immediate captive of it. I do not accept in any sense his premise. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said to the House that he would like an early opportunity to debate the proposals on the new guidelines on immigration. The timing of any debate on that topic is perhaps best left for discussion through the usual channels.

Mr. Derek Spencer: When the Local Government Bill returns to the House, will my right hon. Friend ensure that steps are taken to toughen the Bill? The idea that local government proceeds in a spirit of gentlemanly co-operation is not widely shared by the Labour councillors on Leicester city council. They recently voted another £2,500 to the Labour national local government unit and a similar sum to the local peace action group.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that his remarks are better directed at the Minister in charge of the Bill. I will draw the Minister's attention to his point. Opinions expressed in another place properly have a call upon the time of this House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Leader of the House had time to study early-day motion 500 signed by 126 hon. Members from both sides of the House and the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
[That this House expresses concern at the recently published consultation documents relating to the Disabled


Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill; would regret any steps that might remove or emasculate vital clauses of this Bill, including those which safeguard the interests of carers of persons leaving long-stay hospitals or leaving full-time education by providing a coherent personal plan to meet their individual needs; and while accepting the duty to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, declares that it is inconceivable that services to meet the needs of disabled people can be adequately planned if they are not subject to prior assessment; recognises the overwhelming support for these objectives of the Bill amongst disablement organisations; and calls on the Government to allow the Bill to reach the Statute Book without weakening its provisions.]
Does he appreciate that the Government's consultation document which invited a response received that response yesterday and that the overwhelming reaction of the people consulted and chosen by the Government supported the Bill in its present form? Will he use his considerable influence to ensure that the Bill is undiluted on report and is given the Third Reading which public opinion expects?

Mr. Biffen: I believe that we had this identical exchange a week ago—

Mr. Clarke: No, we did not.

Mr. Biffen: It sounded the same. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I am obliged to take a muted view about what happens upstairs in Standing Committee, but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: My right hon. Friend may recall that from time to time he receives complaints about the leaking of Minister's speeches or Minister's statements. Of course that never happens, but he does receive complaints about it. Is he aware that I have a copy of the speech which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will make this afternoon? The deadline for release of that speech is 3.30 pm. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber and he is not in the Chamber now. Is that an abuse of the House, or is the hon. Gentleman simply being opimistic in believing that anybody will be bothered to read his speech?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I am stricken to know whether it has such novelty as to require consideration by the Procedure Committee or such outrage as to require examination by the Privileges Committee.

Mr. John Stokes: In view of the physical attacks on Her Majesty's Ministers and Members of Parliament at universities and colleges during the past few months, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on that matter? Will he arrange for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science about discipline in universities and a statement by the Home Secretary about what assistance the police can give in such situations?

Mr. Biffen: It is obviously improper for me to suggest what may or may not be in order in the second of the debates chosen for Wednesday. I should have thought that any discussion on higher education could well cover the points raised by my hon. Friend as they are very pertinent.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: As a member of the General Synod, may I welcome, for a change, my right hon. Friend's business statement? Presumably he has read early-day motion 90, which has been signed by more than 90 Members.
[That this House, noting the strength of feelings on the issue of the liberalisation of Sunday trading laws, believes that any votes on this subjct should not be the subject of a whip.]
I assume that my right hon. Friend has also seen early-day motion 538.
[That this House calls upon the Government to seek to amend the Shops Bill [Lords] so as to preserve the special character of Sunday and to have regard for the principles and conscience of those who would be affected by the total de-regulation of Sunday trading.]
The motion, signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Sir A. Butler), calls for a traditional Sunday. Will he ensure that the debate in the House on the Second Reading of the Shops Bill is postponed for as long as possible? In looking at traditions in society, will he spare a thought for the people of Leicester who, for 50 years, have had alternating Conservative and Labour lords mayor each year? Suddenly, because there are 42 Labour council members, the Leicester people have been told they cannot have a Conservative lord mayor again. I hope that we will return to the traditional Sunday and to traditional ways of life, with alternating Conservative and Labour lords mayor each year.

Mr. Biffen: I must say that the traditional Sunday as observed on the Welsh border never gets entangled with mayoral politics. I am sorry that that should be so in Leicester. On the wider issue, may I say to my hon. Friend that, if I note with respect and almost reverence his points about Sunday, it is not to imply that there is any alteration whatsoever in Government policy. I must emphasise that whipping is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to read the eloquent speech of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) during last night's European debate in which he set out, as only he could, the procedure whereby, when we considered the European Communities Bill, the House was able to look at the legislation line by line and to amend it bit by bit, because it transferred powers from the House of Commons to other institutions? As we shall shortly consider the Single European Act, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be totally wrong not to allow an identical facility for amendment to the House when it is considering further transfers of powers?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look at that point.

Teachers' Dispute (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the teachers' dispute in Scotland.
This dispute has now run for nearly 19 months. The education of pupils is suffering increasing disruption, and continuation of the dispute can do nothing but harm. The Government have made repeated efforts to find an acceptable basis on which teachers and their employers could negotiate a settlement, yet formal negotiations have not even begun.
This situation is unsatisfactory from any point of view. It is also in marked contrast to events in England and Wales, where, as the House will be aware, an agreement for the current year has been reached and constructive negotiations on pay, pay structure and related matters are about to begin under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. I very much regret that there is no sign of a similar initiative in Scotland. The statutory negotiating machinery has failed to function and it is therefore necessary to find some means of breaking the deadlock. I therefore propose to set up an independent committee of inquiry with wide-ranging terms of reference in an effort to bring this dispute to an end and establish a basis for the pay, conditions of service and management of the teaching profession in Scotland which is appropriate to the conditions of today.
The inquiry will accordingly be given the following terms of reference:
In the light of the Government's education objectives and the need to observe continuing public expenditure restraint in the interests of taxpayers and ratepayers, to consider:

(a) the duties, pay structure, pay levels and other conditions of service of school teachers, with particular regard to the need to recruit, retain and motivate teachers of the right quality, to address staffing difficulties in shortage areas such as mathematics and science and in particular localities, and to improve the promotion and career prospects of effective teachers, particularly experienced teachers of proven ability who remain in the classroom;
(b) teachers' duties and responsibilities and their definition in contracts of employment;
(c) the arrangements for managing schools and the teaching service;
(d) future arrangements for determining teachers' pay and structure, duties, responsibilities and conditions of service;
(e) the mechanisms for implementing and enforcing the above arrangements;
(f) in all respects the need to take into account what can be afforded;

and to make recommendations.
I hope to announce the names of the chairman and members shortly. The committee will be asked to begin work as soon as possible and to report by the end of the summer so that its findings can be taken into account in the 1986–87 pay settlement. The committee will take evidence from all interested parties and will give the teachers the hearing for which they have asked since the beginning of the dispute. I therefore expect—I believe I shall be supported by both sides of the House in this—that the teachers' unions will call off their industrial action forthwith and allow the life of the schools to return to normal. I hope that teachers and employers will in the meantime agree on a pay settlement for 1985–86 in the normal way while they await the committee's findings on the wider issues.

Mr. Harry Ewing: As one who complains when the Secretary of State or his Ministers make statements not to the House but outside the House, may I make it clear that I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made this important statement to the House, giving himself the opportunity to be asked and to answer questions and to recognise, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously does, the serious damage that he and his Government have done to education in Scotland during the past 19 months. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is incredible that teachers asked in June 1984 for an independent committee of inquiry and that it took the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) until November 1984—six months—to respond by refusing that request? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that everything that has happened since is a direct consequence of the way in which the then Secretary of State dealt with the request? The right hon. Gentleman and the Government are entirely responsible for today's crisis in Scottish education.
How independent does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think the inquiry will be, in view of the fact that he has imposed two major restraints on it:
the need to observe continuing public expenditure restraint"—
applied by the Government at the beginning of the terms of reference—and
the need to take into account what can be afforded
at the end of the terms of reference? Who will tell the inquiry what can be afforded? At what stage during its deliberations will it be told? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that no inquiry can possibly be independent if it works within such tight constraints.
I fully accept that this is a wide-ranging inquiry. I welcome that fact. Will the Secretary of State take account of the wide-ranging nature and detail of the inquiry in determining the date by which it should report? Because of its wide-ranging nature, it may well be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking too much of the inquiry in requiring it to report by the end of the summer. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure me that the criterion for the inquiry will be that of thoroughness rather than speed? The inquiry's recommendations may well have to endure for a long time. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I, for one, would not want thoroughness to be made the victim of speed so that he can have his report quickly.
Is the Secretary of State aware that a great deal will depend on the chairmanship and membership of the inquiry? I plead with him to take fully into account the backgrounds of the people he decides to appoint as the chairman and members of the inquiry, in terms of their knowledge of education and wage negotiations. Bearing in mind that this dispute relates to the salary year beginning 1985, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the inquiry's pay recommendations will be implemented only from the pay year beginning 1986? Why will it not be backdated to the pay year 1985, the date of the dispute?
In suggesting to the teachers and management that they should negotiate a settlement for 1985–86, is the Secretary of State asking that this settlement should be negotiated within the current pay guidelines, or is he prepared to give


some of the £125 million about which he has been telling us for the past year to the local authorities to supplement a pay settlement for that year?
To put the minds of Conservative Members at ease, I make it clear that I welcome this inquiry and I welcome the courage that has been shown by the Secretary of State. However, I condemn most strongly the way in which the Government have handled this dispute, thereby seriously damaging the education prospects of our children. Contrary to what is believed, the Secretary of State looks a pretty sight standing on his head, and he should do it more often.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Member for his welcome of my statement, although I regret that he has not yet echoed my call for the unions to withdraw all industrial action. I am sure that he will want to do that and I hope that he will find an early opportunity to do so.
Any fair-minded person would take the view that the damage caused to the education fabric of Scottish schools over the past 18 months must be the responsibility of those who have put the interests of the youngsters second to their industrial dispute. I think that the vast majority of Scottish people will believe that.
The hon. Member referred to the EIS demands over the past 18 months. He will be aware that it has been seeking an inquiry into pay. There will be one but, as I said in the statement, it is also appropriate that there should be an inquiry into conditions of employment, contracts of service and the whole range of issues referred to in my statement. That is not something that the Government alone believe; as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the education authorities, Labour-controlled as well as Conservative-controlled, have insisted that any outcome to this dispute must involve a package that covers conditions of service as well as pay. It is unfortunate that, up to today, the EIS has refused to acknowledge that fact. I believe that the whole spectrum of political opinion in Scotland has associated itself with that view, as has the hon. Member on a number of occasions.
The hon. Gentleman asked how independent the inquiry will be. The members of the inquiry will be free to make whatever recommendations they believe appropriate. He tried to take issue with the fact that the terms of reference refer to public expenditure restraint and the need to take into account the interest of taxpayers and ratepayers. The general public will not find that inappropriate or unreasonable. It is right, in determining the education objectives that we have at any given time, that we also take into account what can be afforded by the country at that time. I emphasise that the members of the inquiry will be free to make any recommendations that they feel are appropriate, having heard the evidence put to them, and that freedom will extend to all the matters within its consideration.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the report of the inquiry had to be provided by the end of the summer. It is appropriate to try to work towards that target because teachers themselves wish an early outcome to this protracted matter. He also asked why we have not backdated any outcome or any recommendations of the inquiry to the year 1985–86. Even at this date, 19 months

into the dispute, the unions have yet to put in a pay claim for 1985–86. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to take action such as that which he suggested.
I hope, if the hon. Member catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the time allowed for questions, that he will use the opportunity to give Opposition support to the call that I have made for the unions to cease industrial action forthwith.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again draw the attention of the House to the point that we have an important Opposition debate ahead of us, but only half a day for it, and a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part. I shall allow questions on this statement to continue for 20 minutes.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I welcome this statement. It will now clearly be right for the unions to take all action to bring the schools back to normal while the inquiry is going on, in so far as the position can be restored to normal after the damage that I fear has been done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not attempt to explain in his first answer why 19 months was allowed to go by. Without wishing to go into calendar competitiveness, my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and I put precisely those proposals for a wide-ranging inquiry to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor in October 1984. What is the reason for having allowed this delay and the damage to Scottish education over the past 19 months?

Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for the statement and in particular his support for my call that the unions should withdraw all industrial action and allow the schools to return to normality. As to the other matters, repeated attempts were made both by my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State and other interested parties to get the parties together to begin the negotiations. Unfortunately, right up to this day, the EIS has refused to become involved in negotiations. It is because the existing negotiating machinery has been seen to be ineffective in helping to resolve the dispute that it is necessary for Government to intervene to break the deadlock.

Sir Hector Monro: In view of the failure of the Scottish joint negotiating committee to find a solution to this problem I warmly welcome the investigation into pay and conditions of service and structure of teaching. I hope that the teachers will also accept this package. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it a condition of acceptance of this package that the teachers stop any further disruption of education in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: An inquiry is to take place, and it is not subject to the approval of any particular quarter. However, I think that the public in Scotland will find it unthinkable that, while an inquiry is going on into pay and other matters involved, such as conditions of service, teachers will take strike action, boycott exams or carry out other acts of disruption against the youngsters in their care.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State give assurances that any new machinery for determining the salaries and conditions of


service applied to teachers will fully recognise the teachers' organisations and will not remove or diminish the teachers' right to belong to a trade union?

Mr. Rifkind: The inquiry is free to make any recommendations that it wishes, and the Government will then have to consider the recommendations. The Government attach great importance to the rights of teachers to belong to trade unions, and I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which that right would be changed.

Mr. Alex Fletcher: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the robust and realistic nature of the terms of reference for the inquiry. Will he ensure that parents are also robustly represented on the committee and that those teachers, unions that do not now cease industrial action are barred from the review?

Mr. Rifkind: The inquiry will be free to take evidence from such quarters as it thinks appropriate. I consider it desirable that the individuals serving on the inquiry will be appointed on the basis of their individual contributions and not necessarily in regard to any representative qualities that they might have. One will take into account the background and experience of the individuals concerned.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman understand that I very much welcome his statement and that I appeal to the teachers to end their industrial dispute, upon one condition? Their morale is at the lowest ebb that I can remember. Unless and until the Secretary of State says that he will treat the teachers' pay claim for 1985–86 as generously as the judges, admirals and the rest were treated, I fear that there will still be difficulties ahead for him. Does he understand that in the light of the terms of reference many people think that the timetable is very tight?

Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's call to the teachers to cease their industrial disruption. As for his qualification, I have to emphasise to him that the Educational Institute of Scotland and the other unions have insisted all along that they have no desire to put in a claim because they wish there to be an inquiry that will look into these matters and make long-term recommendations. It is appropriate, therefore, that the inquiry should proceed on the basis that I have outlined.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my congratulations upon his excellent plan for an inquiry, which is worthy of Solomon? It should satisfy employers, parents and all teachers who wish the strike action to be ended and the profession to be held in the highest esteem and those who have the best interests of the pupils at heart. It is particularly encouraging to those areas that have been subjected to wholly unfair targeting. Those who reject this excellent inquiry will be judged accordingly.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. All I would say is that Solomon is a slightly better comparison than I have been used to in recent weeks.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State accept that, although we welcome the fact that he has decided to set up an independent review, we regret very deeply that it has taken him 18 months to do it? I notice

that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is at his elbow, like the "hoodie craw"? Is it not an amazing coincidence that this offer is being made just two days after the English settlement? Why could not the Scottish Office have settled this at the beginning? A settlement could have been made then. I echo the points that have been made earlier in the light of what has been proposed. I hope that the teachers will call off their action and that the Government will honour the motivation behind it and ensure that they get a fair settlement this year and a properly supported outcome of this review at the end of the day.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's comments were typical of a Liberal intervention: qualifying every remark in order that it might not sound too significant to any section of the community. I believe that the Scottish public will welcome this committee as a necessary and essential way of ensuring that the interests of Scottish youngsters are well protected.

Mr. John Corrie: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that I welcome his statement? Will he also accept that I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that this is a very wide-ranging inquiry, which will affect the shape of education for a very long time to come? Therefore it should not be rushed. It should be got right. In the meantime, will my right hon. and learned Friend try to get the two parties together to provide some advance for the teachers, who really need it?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. I have no desire to see a rushed inquiry. Naturally, we shall reflect and take into account the views of the members of the inquiry. We are all anxious to ensure a suitable outcome. However, we hope that the inquiry will also take into account the desire of both the education authorities and the unions that this dispute, which has already been very protracted, should not be extended too far as a result of the inquiry.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Secretary of State concede, in his wisdom, that this approach on his behalf would not have happened had the teachers not remained united in their view and if their unions had not remained fairly obdurate in pursuit of their claim? I wish to probe him a little upon the nature of the inquiry. If I heard him aright, the Secretary of State said that the inquiry would be fully independent and would be able to come forward with any recommendation. Will that include the possibility of an interim report on pay alone because of the need to allay fears and suspicions about the Secretary of State's restraint upon the terms of reference—which, as far as I can gather, are his terms of reference and not terms of reference agreed with the teacher unions? Can he assure me that if the body concerned wanted to come forward with an interim report on pay he would not place any impediments in its way? Moreover, is it the Secretary of State's intention to appoint as members of this inquiry any assessors from the Scottish Office?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not see any likelihood of assessors from the Scottish Office being appointed, although the Scottish Office will undoubtedly wish to give evidence to the inquiry. As for an interim report, along with all the education authorities the Government take the view that


the ultimate resolution of this dispute has to be in the form of a package covering conditions of service and contracts of employment as well as pay. Therefore, an interim report on pay would be as inappropriate as an interim report on conditions of service.

Mr. Douglas: But it is not independent.

Mr. Rifkind: It is indeed independent, because the members of the inquiry are being requested to make recommendations on all of these matters. Quite naturally, we expect them to make these recommendations at the same time.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: As one who has supported the teachers in their demand to be brought into line with the present salary structures of other professions, I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's efforts to try to bring this very sad dispute to an end because of the effect that it has had on parents, teachers and pupils. When my right hon. and learned Friend forms this committee of investigation does he intend to look at the need to have representatives of the teaching profession on it to ensure that their point of view about the demands that they have already made can be fully aired?

Mr. Rifkind: The point of view of the teaching profession and the education authorities will be primarily made by the evidence that each of them submits to the inquiry. I said earlier that I expect the members of the inquiry to be appointed primarily in regard to the personal contribution that they can make to the work of the inquiry.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Is the Secretary of State aware that in at least one school in my constituency there was a long industrial dispute prior to the present industrial dispute? This means that the education of many children in my constituency, an area of high unemployment, will be damaged. What steps will the Secretary of State take to try to ensure that these children catch up with their education?

Mr. Rifkind: Obviously we are all very concerned that that should be brought about. No doubt the Strathclyde education authority will be the most appropriate body to take detailed action in regard to a particular school.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Although the Secretary of State's statement indicates a belated shift in the Government's attitude, will he admit that his claim that he is giving the teachers an independent hearing, for which they have been asking all along, is simply not true? His inquiry incorporates not just pay but conditions of service and contracts of employment. It is not exactly independent if at the outset it is placed in the finanial straitjacket of the Government's economic policy to cut public expenditure, particularly on education. Is the Secretary of State not aware of the obvious fact that the Government will get the education system for which they are prepared to pay? Will he come clean, therefore, and tell us whether at the very outset he is ruling out a restoration of the pay levels that were awarded by Houghton to the teachers over a decade ago?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in one respect and right in the other. He is wrong to suggest that the inquiry will be involved in some financial straitjacket. It will be asked to recommend what the pay of a teacher

should be now, and in particular to take into account the various duties and responsibilities of teachers when coming to a view and making a recommendation on that matter. The hon. Gentleman is certainly right when he says that this inquiry goes significantly beyond the kind of inquiry that the unions have requested. It includes pay but it also deals with the other matters that the hon. Gentleman correctly mentioned. That is something that I believe a wide spectrum of opinion in Scotland has always maintained should be the case.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that parents are absolutely sick to death of this dispute and that his statement will be widely welcomed? I hope that it will be noted by parents throughout Scotland that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), is more concerned with dotting the i's and crossing the t's in the interests of the Educational Institute of Scotland than in welcoming this agreement and asking the EIS and the other unions to call off their action in the interests of pupils and parents.

Mr. Rifkind: I think that the House is still waiting with interest to know whether the Opposition will join my call and, indeed, the call of the Liberals and other parties, for the unions now to call off their industrial action.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Since the independent inquiry team will be operating within the straitjacket that has been designed by the Government, why has it taken 18 months for them to concede this inquiry? Will the Secretary of State give a guarantee today that he will honour the financial recommendations that the inquiry team makes, and that that will be reflected in the rate support grant to education authorities?

Mr. Rifkind: I repeat that the inquiry will be free to make any recommendations on conditions of service, contracts of employment and pay which it thinks appropriate. Not only we but the education authorities and the unions will wish to see the whole package of recommendations that it may make before coming to any conclusions as to what then should take place.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: , I welcome the initiative the Secretary of State has taken and hope that the Scottish teachers will give it serious consideration. I wish to suggest three things to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. First, in view of the fact that teachers have been without an increase in pay for a considerable time and have suffered a depreciation in their salary levels in relative terms, will he make a generous cash offer now because, considering the fact that this is not a pay review but one relating to pay and conditions, such an offer would be useful? Can he also give attention to the question of consultation on the appointment of the independent committee so that the teachers' representatives know that this is not to be just a collection of friends of the Scottish Office? Lastly, can the Secretary of State give a better reply than that which he gave to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) in relation to relativities and variations of pay levels? I think that such a statement, given the two inhibitions in his own statement, will go a long way to allay the fears and suspicions that many teachers could have that this is a con and not a serious offer.

Mr. Rifkind: There is no question of it being anything other than a serious contribution. If that were not so, I would be indicating constraints on the kind of recommendations that the inquiry will be free to make. I emphasise again that the inquiry will be free to make any recommendations—including recommendations on pay—which it believes to be appropriate. It will hear evidence from the various quarters and come to its own conclusions as to what it believes the pay and pay structures for Scottish teachers should be.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that the Opposition parties have begun to draw attention to the practical difficulties that arise from an independent review embracing both pay and conditions? Is it not the case that if the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) last February had been adopted and the Scottish joint negotiating committee has commissioned an independent review, some of the problems would have been overcome? Will he now ensure that the inquiry will go forward as speedily as is practicable and that in the meantime there will be urgent negotiations to determine a pay settlement for the last two years?

Mr. Rifkind: With regard to 1985–86 I very much hope that the unions and local authorities will get together to agree a settlement. A settlement has already been obtained for England and Wales for that year. There is nothing to stop an agreement for Scotland being reached. The inquiry will, of course, make recommendations on future pay levels. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of the inquiry in the way suggested to me by some hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Hugh Brown: Many of us recognise that this is not the place to conduct negotiations but, since we will be meeting the EIS in Perth tomorrow, I for one should like to be able to urge the withdrawal of industrial action. As the Secretary of State says that there will be no pay claim accepted for 1985–86, is he ruling out the review body going back to 1985–86?

Mr. Rifkind: As to 1985–86, it is for the unions to make a claim to the employers and for the employers and unions to negotiate and reach a conclusion. It has already happened elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and ought now to happen for Scotland. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's desire to call upon the unions to withdraw their industrial action so that the inquiry can take evidence and make its recommendations in an atmosphere conducive to the best interests of Scottish education.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Can I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that his initiative will be widely welcomed, not least in Strathkelvin and Bearsden, which has had more than its fair share of disruptive action? Is he aware that parents, public and most reasonable teachers will be reassured that duties and responsibilities are to be examined since it cannot be right that a teacher on full pay can boycott examination procedures? Does he agree that, if the EIS does not call off its industrial action and disruption of Scottish education, it will have rightly earned the condemnation of the people of Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the vast majority of Scottish teachers, who are moderate

and reasonable people, Will expect their union leadership to indicate that they should now return to normal working in the schools so that the inquiry can proceed in the proper atmosphere. I repeat, I still wait for Opposition Members to make a similar call.

Mr. Ron Brown: Surely the "Governor-General" will accept that a public inquiry is simply a device to get the Government off the hook, bearing in mind that very shortly the Tory party will suffer another disaster in the regional elections. Surely the point is that, unless the teachers see the colour of the Government's money, they should continue with their industrial action because that is the only effective action they can take at the end of the day.

Mr. Rifkind: I think that the hon. Gentleman, by his latter comments, makes it quite clear that he is not the slightest bit interested in Scottish education and simply wishes to be a troublemaker.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State accept the recommendations of the inquiry?

Mr. Rifkind: When the inquiry makes its recommendations, not only the Government but the unions and the education authorities will wish to consider the whole range of the recommendations, and naturally we shall wish to give them very great consideration. We are not setting up the inquiry purely as a cosmetic exercise. We will naturally wish, as will the unions and the education authorities, to give the closest scrutiny and considerable weight to the recommendations of such an inquiry.

Mr. David Marshall: Should the inquiry recommend a retrospective pay award, will the Secretary of State accept such a recommendation?

Mr. Rifkind: I have already indicated that we envisage that the recommendations of the inquiry should take effect from 1986–87 onwards. I think that it is appropriate to look at it on that basis, particularly as the unions themselves have not put in a claim and have indicated that they want an inquiry to look to the future and not simply to the past.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Can the Secretary of State take note of the resolute support given to the teachers by the vast majority of parents throughout this long, miserable dispute? With that in mind, can he confirm that this is a genuinely independent review? If it is without any strings attached, all of us will join in calling for an end to the action.

Mr. Rifkind: Many parents have had sympathy with the teachers' claim for higher pay, but very few parents have had sympathy with the teachers' tactics of disrupting the education of their children. I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. I only wish that, on this occasion, he had been able to make them not from the Back Benches but from the Opposition Dispatch box.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the Minister accept that this conciliatory gesture will be welcomed by many people in Scotland? Since, from the teachers' point of view, the core of the dispute has been about pay, is he aware that if he were to indicate that meaningful negotiations could take place about the last year of pay it would be a useful start and would help the teachers in trying to reach a satisfactory end to their industrial action.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's own Labour-controlled education authority in Central region and, indeed, other Labour regions, have indicated that they believe that the resolution of the dispute must include a package covering matters other than pay. He ought to discuss these matters with his colleagues on the regional council.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Thursday 13 March.
Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am on Wednesday 12 March. A list showing the subjects and the times will be published later that day. Normally the time allotted will not exceed one and half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS. &C.

Ordered,
That the draft Broadcasting (Local Sound Broadcast Programme Contractors' Additional Payments) Order 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Opposition Day

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Plight of the Elderly

Mr. Speaker: As we have started rather late, I appeal for short speeches from the Front and Back Benches. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, bearing in mind the cruel hardship suffered by hundreds of thousands of elderly people in the harshest winter for 40 years resulting in a 10-fold increase in deaths from hypothermia, condemns the Government for its total failure to protect pensioners throughout the second coldest February on record: deplores the Government's inactivity in the face of the manifest breakdown of the exceptionally severe weather payments system; and calls upon the Government to ensure that the most vulnerable elderly and disabled people receive adequate income to keep warm and healthy during the remainder of this and subsequent winters.
It is often said that the measure of civilisation in a society lies in how it treats its elderly people, and that is a yardstick which the Tory Government, with their record, must rue. We have just been through a long period of intense and exceptional cold; indeed, the coldest February for 40 years and the second chilliest this century. [Interruption.] There are some very childish Members in the House. I thought that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was a headmaster. I should have thought that he would have learnt to behave differently from schoolchildren.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way.
All over Britain easterly winds have kept temperatures far below freezing—down even to minus 15 deg, and to minus 20 deg in many places. Deaths from hypothermia have run into thousands. In last winter's cold snap, which was less cold than the past four weeks have been, there were 46,000 more deaths than in summer—an increase of 16,000 over the previous mild winter. Therefore, it would not be surprising if this winter there were about 60,000 cold-related deaths.
Even the Government's own figures—which grossly understate death due to the cold, because hypothermia-related deaths are classified separately as due to pneumonia, bronchitis or heart attack—tell the same story—that the death rate from hypothermia was 10 times higher last year than in 1978. They also show that in the first half of 1985 hypothermia killed 20 per cent.—

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): rose—

Mr. Meacher: I shall give way in a moment.
The figures also show that in the first half of 1985 hypothermia killed 20 per cent. more pensioners than in the whole of 1984. It is all too likely that in the first two months of 1986 hypothermia killed more pensioners than in any comparable period this century. In fact, I have today received figures from the Office of Population Censuses


and Surveys which confirm those suspicions. They reveal that in the first three weeks of February 1986, 6,011 more people died than in the same period two years ago. They show clearly that the death toll from the severity of this winter has been over 2,000 a week greater than has happened previously, even in winter time. That is a clear measure of the Government's failure to protect pensioners from the ravages of this exceptional cold.

Mr. Fowler: If I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, he alleged that there had been a tenfold increase between 1978 and 1985 in deaths from hypothermia. That is completely without foundation. What is the basis upon which the hon. Gentleman makes that charge?

Mr. Meacher: I make that charge on the basis of the figures which have been widely provided, which show that in 1977–78 just over 40 persons died in those weeks. I agree that Government figures, including the Labour Government's figures, grossly understate the number of deaths from hypothermia, for the reasons that I have given. That is true under all Governments, and it is certainly true under this one, but, on the same statistical basis, 415 people died in the first half of 1985—

Mr. Fowler: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but it is important that the House understands this. The figures that the hon. Gentleman has quoted are on an entirely different statistical basis. In other words, he has compared the position before 1979, which was on one statistical basis, with the position after 1979, which was on another. That was made clear in the parliamentary reply that has been given. If the hon. Gentleman looks at that reply he will see that the worst year was 1979, and the winter months of that year. What the hon. Gentleman has just charged is completely untrue.

Mr. Meacher: What were the figures on the same basis for the period 1970 to 1978? What I am saying is that there has been a considerable increase, and this year the increase will be substantially greater than for any previous year. Does the Secretary of State deny that? Does he deny that in the past three weeks the number of deaths has been substantially higher than we have registered at probably any time since the war for a similar period?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is talking about additional deaths from hypothermia. We clearly have no accurate figures on that. What we have are figures which go back from 1985 to 1975, which make it clear that the worst period was the winter of 1979.

Mr. Meacher: I am sorry that the Secretary of State says that he does not have the figures. Perhaps his office has not given him the up-to-date figures. I have been given the figures for the number of deaths in the first three weeks of February 1986 compared with the number of deaths in the first three weeks of 1984, which was a "more normal winter".
There have been 6,000 more deaths than normal in the past three weeks. That suggests a mortality rate 2,000 every week higher than has previously been experienced in winter. While not all of those will be due to hypothermia, it would be reasonable to suppose that the great majority are deaths which have been precipitated by the extreme cold and the Government's failure to protect pensioners and others from that cold.

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is a short debate. The Secretary of State will be seeking to catch my eye shortly. Perhaps he can deal with these matters when he makes his own speech.

Mr. Meacher: In the face of this national disaster, the Government have been conspicuous by their inactivity. Responsibility for deciding whether exceptionally severe weather payments should be made was hived off to local Department of Health and Social Security officers, but no guidance has been given as to what constitutes severity in exceptionally severe weather.
Up to 10 days ago, during a period when any fool could have said that the weather was exceptionally severe, only a third of Britain's DHSS offices officially acknowledged the fact. That number suddenly rose to 80 per cent. only last week, and it is difficult to resist the conclusion that that had something to do with the Opposition's choice to make it into a central issue for this debate this week.
The Government have still refused to launch any national advertising, so the vast majority of eligible claimants are still unaware of their entitlements and the result has been pathetic. In Barry in south Wales, which I happened to visit last Friday, an area which had been designated on 7 February, only one claim had been processed in the course of the previous three weeks, paying out precisely 47p.
There has been a great deal of talk about exceptionally severe weather. I sometimes think that the real problem is an exceptionally severe Government. The human consequences of this are incalculable. Every day the media have carried stories of elderly people who have frozen to death in their own homes, such as Mrs. Edith Davis aged 83. Her Blackpool home was heated by only a two-bar fire. It was so cold when she was found that thermometers were useless to measure her temperature.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way. I want to make a bit more progress. I have been asked to make a short speech and I intend to do so. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to take part in the debate.
The problem has arisen not just because of the extreme cold. Part of the reason is that by deliberate Government policy the price of fuel has been kept too high for the poor to afford. Gas and electricity prices, and water charges, have all risen too fast because the Government have used them as an easy way of raising extra income. Even if special benefit payments are made, they do not compensate. The end product is overcrowded hospitals and pennywise pensioners freezing in underheated homes. That is not muddling through; it is malign neglect.
A month ago seven American astronauts were lost in an accident and the whole world was distraught. Yet 700 British pensioners die of hypothermia and the Government, Pontius Pilate-like, wash their hands and walk away. There is something sickening about a society where jobs in the City are changing hands among 25-year-olds at fancy six-figure salaries while pensioners have to make a choice between warmth and food and are given only a 1 per cent. pension increase. There is something nauseating about a Chancellor planning £1·5 billion tax cuts in a fortnight's time while pensioners are fobbed off


with an insulting 40p, which would not buy more than a couple of lumps of coal. It is shameful that in Britain, the country in western Europe most richly endowed with energy resources, more pensioners die of hypothermia than in any other Western country.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: rose—

Mr. Meacher: There is more than a twinge of rank hypocrisy—

Mrs. Currie: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Meacher: There is more than a twinge of rank hypocrisy about the Prime Minister claiming that the Government are spending £140 million on heating allowances—

Mr. Kenneth Hind: rose—

Mr. Meacher: —when the same Government have cut pensions by £5,500 million since 1979 by breaking the link with earnings in the uprating of pensions.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has three more jobs.

Mr. Meacher: If Labour's formula had been carried on by the Government, every single pensioner would now get £4 a week more in pension, and all married pensioners would get £6·50 per week more. It is irrefutable that if such pensions had been paid over the last two or three months thousands of pensioners who have died would be alive today.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Meacher: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to speak later, if he wishes.
We can, and will, go further. Our policy is to maintain the state earnings-related pension scheme and not to emasculate it, as the Government intend. Under a Labour Government, SERPS will within the next 13 years double the pension in real terms. Under Labour policy, pensioners will never again have to make a choice between warmth and food.
We recognise, however, that over the next decade periods of intense cold will continue to require significant extra aid for the most vulnerable. We view exceptionally severe weather payments as a vehicle which will probably never provide adequate aid to those in need at the time they need it. Last year's system depended on Meterological Office readings round the country by arbitrary associations. They have been declared illegal by social security tribunals. This year's system, after the change that the Government made, depends on arbitrary decisions by local officers, without national guidance about when, how, or at what level payment should be made. Far too few people in grave need have received help. The help has come too late and the amounts paid would be a farce, if the situation were not so tragic. Because the payments are limited to those on supplementary benfit, they rule out many other poor pensioners and widows.
The Government may make something of the fact that the weather is now less cold, but the bills have not yet

come in. Even now not enough has been done to reassure pensioners who are afraid to turn on the heating because they may get into debt. It is a bad system that encourages people to get into debt. Pensioners who pay their bills do not get help. The present system creates particular hardship for those who have "pay as you go" slot meters, or who use coal or paraffin. They have to prove that the money would otherwise have been spent on, for example, food or clothing. It is diabolical that in order to get help pensioners are subjected to such a system.
For all those reasons, we reject the system as a cruel deceit for those who need urgent help in the bitter cold. Our policy has two aims. First, there is an urgent priority to organise a national programme for better home insulation. One indictment of current policy is that in Sweden and Canada, which suffer much colder winter weather, far fewer of the elderly population die of hypothermia. A campaign for home insulation makes sense on every count. It is a labour intensive operation, which would provide a big increase in jobs, at a time when building workers are suffering one of the highest rates of unemployment of any occupation. Home insulation would be energy saving. Once it was installed the consumer would pay less for heating. Above all, it would play a key role in reducing hypothermia.
Secondly, despite the much bigger pensions that we would pay, significantly increased help must be given to the most vulnerable in the cold winter months. If an extra £5 per week were paid automatically to all pensioners on supplementary benefit, it would cost £8·25 million a week. If we included also, as we believe we should, another 1 million pensioners and widows with resources slightly above the supplementary benefit qualification, but who are still in real need and who are unable to warm themselves adequately, that would cost another £5 million a week. If that aid were given every week from mid-December to the beginning of March, it would cost about £130 million. The investment of that sum each winter is the least that those who have worked for the country in peacetime and who, when the call came, fought for the country in wartime, have a right to expect from a civilised society. That is our pledge.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend comment on the news that was reported in The Guardian earlier this week, that Liberal and Conservative councillors in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham had decided to sell an old people's home, known as Stewart's Lodge, together with the pensioners within that home, to a private company? They have been stopped from doing that only by the positive action of Mr. Derek Prentice, the leader of the Labour group on that council, who has saved those people from the clutches of private enterprise.

Mr. Meacher: I saw that report in The Guardian yesterday. That proposal to sell off not only the home but the 29 people in it as a single job lot was typical of the privatisation initiatives taken by the Government. I also noticed that the proposal was voted for by Tory and Liberal councillors.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Meacher: In a debate on the plight of the elderly that shows the attitude of the Government, who regard old people and their welfare simply as a means of increasing profit.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I hope that those who will uniquely have an opportunity in the coming weeks to vote on the matter will take account of that.
We have given our pledge. Never again must this country endure a winter when the poor and the elderly freeze to death for want of help with heating bills. That is our objective. We will not only will the end; we will also will the means.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
recognises the difficulties faced by elderly people during periods of severe weather; commends the Government's record of paying higher retirement pensions to more pensioners than ever before, of increasing the supplementary benefit scale rates, of providing for the first time automatic heating additions of £2·20 per week for all supplementary pensioner households over 65 years of age, and of introducing a higher rate of £5·45 per week for such pensioners over 85 years of age; notes with approval that payments under the exceptionally severe weather scheme are now available throughout mainland Britain; and observes that the present relative stability in fuel prices demonstrates the value of firm control over inflation and is in stark contrast to the increase of 170 per cent. in electricity prices over the period of the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979.
I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that this is a profoundly important subject and that policy must match its importance. I entirely reject, however, the type of speech that he made, which, even on his record, is one of the worst that he has ever made. I also entirely reject the charges that he levelled at the Government. The Government are now directing record resources to heating additions. In real terms we are directing £140 million more than the Labour Government. The facts make it crystal clear that the Government have given more help through heating additions, that we have given it more effectively and that we have directed it in such a way as to ensure that it goes to the people who need it most.
As we saw again today, nothing has been more disgraceful than the way in which the human problems of the elderly have been exploited by the Opposition during the past few weeks. No charge has been too extravagant. No care has been taken about the fears that have been aroused or about the information that has been employed. We had a profound example of that today. I should like to give two examples of what I mean.
On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
Why … has our death rate during the winter been three times that of the United States of America and four times that of Sweden?"—[Official Report, 4 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 149.]
We have checked on that statement, and for what period the latest international figures are available. The latest evidence that we have was given in the November issue of Health Trends. It did indeed show that the increase in the death rate in winter in the United Kingdom—not of course the death rate itself—was higher than in the United States or Sweden, but the period taken for the international comparison was the three-year period 1976 to 1979, and for the crucial winter months of those years the Opposition were in power. It seems to me to be an exercise in cynical trivialisation to suggest that the

problem of winter deaths is somehow the responsibility of this Government and that the problem has not arisen before.
The second example comes from the speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and from the motion, which condemns the Government on the basis of suffering during the winter
resulting in a 10-fold increase in deaths from hypothermia
There is absolutely no evidence of a tenfold increase. The only basis on which that statement could have been made is a total misreading of figures which compare 1975 with 1985, but those figures were on an entirely different statistical basis.
What is worse is that any comparison of the past 10 years—1975 to 1985—shows that it was during the winter of 1979 when most deaths in England and Wales with mention of hypothermia occurred. In the first three months of 1979, there were 585 deaths with mention of hypothermia in England and Wales. That is more than in any year in the period 1975 to 1985, and in those winter months of 1979 the Labour party was in power.
My fundamental objection to the Opposition's case is that they are devaluing the argument and have no concept of what the real debate is about. It is not just about spending money, and it is not just about hypothermia, serious and tragic though that is. The issues go far wider and are infinitely more difficult and complex than the hon. Gentleman has even hinted at.
It has been a long established trend in Britain that, when the weather is exceptionally cold, there have been increases in the number of deaths from or associated with hypothermia; but there is also the wider problem of the substantial increase in the number of deaths from all causes which are associated with the winter—strokes, coronary heart disease and chest infection.
As it happens, matters have improved. The excess mortality associated with winter has diminished. I take the example of men. In the period 1959 to 1963, the average excess was 27 per cent. In the 1970s, the average excess was 16 per cent., and in the period 1982 to 1984, the average excess was 13 per cent. There has been an improvement, although I am the first to say that we cannot be satisfied until the figures have been brought down even further.
The evidence is that—as the 1976 to 1979 figures show—circumstances in Britain are worse than in some other countries which have severer climates, and the reasons for that are anything but clear. There appears to be no substantial difference between people living in institutions, such as old people's homes, and those living at home. Central heating does not seem to be the crucial factor. No correlation has been found between the percentage of households with central heating in nine different regions of England and the seasonal variation in mortality. Nor is the problem concerned solely with the elderly; it applies to virtually all age groups.
This is self-evidently a serious and complex issue.It is not remotely an issue just of social security. A whole range of other issues are involved, not least the attitudes which society takes towards the problems of elderly people and how it reacts and responds Ito cold weather.
I also accept that proper social security provision is fundamentally important in enabling elderly people to cope with severe weather. This is where I return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. If the


debate on social security is to be informed and responsible, it is also important that the true background is well understood.
There are three points on social security that I want to emphasise. The first concerns pensions. In November, pensions went up by £4 a week for a married couple and £2·50 for a single person. That was an increase of 7 per cent. when inflation was 5·5 per cent. In the interim July uprating, the retired couple's pension will rise to £61·95 a week. That compares with £31·20 per week in November 1978. In the autumn, the Government will announce a further increase, to be paid from April 1987. In other words, there will be three upratings in 16 months. That means that this Government have more than honoured their pledge to maintain the value of pensions by protecting them against inflation.
In fact, at November 1985 prices, the pension was worth £3 a week more in real terms than it was in November 1978. During the same period, the number of pensioners has risen from 8·5 million to 9·5 million. That means that we are paying higher pensions and paying them to more pensioners than ever before. Spending on retirement pensions has thus risen from £7·5 billion in 1978–79 to £16·5 billion in 1985–86—a rise of £2·5 billion in real terms.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In spite of those figures, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it odd that our pensions are below average wages, unlike pensions in Scandinavian countries and among our European partners? Our pensioners have a far smaller cut of national wages.

Mr. Fowler: I understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I would say that, despite what has been a difficult economic period throughout western Europe, we have not only increased the real value of pensions but paid those pensions to about 1 million more pensioners than previously. We have also done one more vital thing for pensioners in this country. It is not enough simply to say that we shall increase pensions. Inflation must also be kept under control if the security of pensioners is to be fully assured. That was the crucial failure of the previous Labour Government. During the five years of the Labour Government, inflation rose by 112 per cent. Not only were savings destroyed, but the value of any increase in pensions was eaten away at an alarming rate month by month. Therefore, the control of inflation is crucial, and that is one of the Government's most important achievements for pensioners and all those on fixed incomes.
Secondly, I want to deal with the position of pensioners requiring supplementary benefit. The most important additional help that goes to pensioners on the lowest incomes is the regular guaranteed income that is provided week by week. The supplementary benefit scale rates are aimed at meeting normal living expenses, including heating. The higher, long-term rate of support goes automatically to pensioners in recognition of their extra needs. The real value of the scale rates has risen by 6 per cent. between 1978 and 1985.
Thirdly, in addition to the regular help that is provided through supplementary pensions, there are specific further heating additions. As the House will know, they are

received by those who need extra warmth because of age, ill health or disability or whose homes are exceptionally difficult to heat.
The Government have made heating additions automatically payable to supplementary pensioners who are householders and aged 65 or more. The result is that over 90 per cent. of all supplementary pensioners now get a heating addition, compared with only about 70 per cent. in 1978. Between 1978 and 1985 the basic rate of heating addition has gone up by about 20 per cent. in real terms.
The higher rate of heating addition of £5·45 a week goes to the very old—those over 85, who are increasing in numbers—as well as to the severely disabled. That is worth over £230 a year extra to someone on the long-term rate. Taken together with the help in the weekly benefit rate itself, it means about £600 a year to help with heating costs.
The position is that 2·5 million people in this country are now receiving extra help with heating, and predominantly that help is going to the elderly. In terms of the amount of money spent, the Government are devoting £400 million a year to heating additions—an increase in real terms of £140 million since 1978.
The right way to help with heating costs is through a regular weekly income which is related to needs. That is how help has been given by successive Governments. In addition, limited help has been given by successive Governments. In addition, limited help has been available with extra expenditure in times of severe weather. This help, which goes back to the days of the National Assistance Board, has always represented a very small part of help with heating costs. The fact is that arrangements of this sort cannot by their nature be an adequate substitute for a regular weekly income on which people are able to plan ahead.
I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Oldham, West that the Government have already taken steps to ensure that those who need help through the exceptionally severe weather payments system receive it. In an advertising campaign, which begins tomorrow and will go on over the weekend, we shall again seek to ensure that people know how to claim the money. That is exactly what the hon. Member for Oldham, West was asking for.

Mr. Frank Field: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way again.
We have made it clear that we are reviewing this scheme for next winter. We are also examining future policy overall. In the reform of social security in the Social Security Bill, which is at present in Committee, we have made it clear that overall at least the same level of resources will be devoted to helping with heating costs. We shall also be considering whether, within the new structure, there are more effective ways of deploying those resources.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I think that the hon. Gentleman may find this attractive.
I have it in mind that in the income support scheme there may be a case for winter premiums which would recognise in a more straightforward way the extra winter needs of certain vulnerable groups. I am certainly prepared to examine the case for that.
I shall also be considering the role of the social fund. Even those who are not supporters of the social fund—


[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will be able to address the House later if she catches the eye of the Chair. I think that we must recognise that the existing regulatory framework has not served us well on the severe weather payments system. If one wants to relate extra help sensitively and flexibly to individual personal needs, the best basis for achieving that aim is not to try to define that help in every detail in advance in regulations. The general approach of the social fund is a much better starting point.

Mr. Frank Field: rose—

Mr. Fowler: This debate goes beyond social security. For example, the Health Service is crucial for elderly people. Over the past six and a half years the actual amount of patient care provided—both in hospital and in the community—has increased. Those advances have been recorded in areas of particular importance to old people. Between 1978 and 1984 in England the number of geriatric in-patient cases increased by 47 per cent., the number of geriatric out-patient cases increased by 35 per cent., the number of regular geriatric day patient attendances rose by almost 20 per cent., and the number of elderly people treated by district nurses rose by about 26 per cent.
At the same time, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of key staff providing geriatric services. Between 1978 and 1984 the number of consultants increased by almost 30 per cent., while the number of other hospital medical staff increased by 22 per cent. The trend is also clear in personal social services. Spending has risen from £1,062 million in 1978–79 to £2,417 million in 1985–86. That is a real increase of over 20 per cent. That expenditure is shown by increased services on the ground. The number of places in day centres is up by over 20 per cent., the number of home helps is up by 14 per cent. and the total number of meals on wheels provided has risen by over 1 million on levels achieved by 1979.
What matters is the message behind the figures. More old people are getting more services under this Government than they got in the period 1974 to 1979. That is a clear message, which reflects credit and achievement on all concerned in the National Health Service, local authorities and personal social services. The number of very elderly people in our population is rising and there will be major challenges in the years ahead.
The central point that I want to make is that the House should address the problems on the basis of the facts, not on the basis of the totally bogus catalogue of charges made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The Government stand on the basis of the facts. We are committed to the welfare of elderly people. We have proved that commitment by our record so far, and we will maintain that commitment to the growing numbers of elderly people in this country in the years ahead.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House of Mr. Speaker's appeal for short speeches.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I would like to make a short contribution to the debate. In all these debates about the plight of the elderly we are inclined to become wrapped up solely in the problems that confront the elderly and our perception of the elderly is

that they are a problem. That is a wrong-headed approach to the issues and difficulties that face us. The elderly members of our community should be considered as a positive resource. They have experience and they have a real contribution to make.

Ms. Harriet Harman: rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: No, I shall not give way. I do not have time to do so.
Of course, the elderly need basic essentials, and they need additional resources. In some specific instances and areas they need more help and assistance generally. As the Secretary of State said, that straddles issues like money—which is of prime importance but not the only factor—health care, housing, transport, social support and energy needs.

Ms. Harman: rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: I am sorry but I do not have time to give way to the hon. Lady.
It would be wrong to consider the problems that confront the elderly outwith the broad context that I have set out. I agree with the Secretary of State about that.
In this debate we are seeking to react to a real need and an emergency that has resulted from the exceptionally severe weather we have experienced. It is right and proper that the debate is taking place, but there is a more important need, which is to engage in long-term planning. There must be a good deal more long-term planning so that we are not merely reacting to emergencies.

Mr. Frank Field: rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: As I have said to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), I do not have time to give way to interventions.
I listened carefully to the Secretary of State. He contended that the statistics that he provided—I have no way of refuting them—suggest that health and community care services are actually improving and are not merely under control. That is not the evidence that comes to me through my eyes and ears. More important, that is not the evidence that is related to me by my colleagues and by those who actually work in health and community care services. Such people are not especially politically motivated and they report to me that there has been a tremendous increase in demands upon them because of an increase in the number of people that they serve and the new and improved quality and standard of service that they are expected to provide. The statistics that the Secretary of State provides are not what really matter. He must measure up to the increasing demands that are being made on our services. If he hides behind statistics all the time, he will never get round to measuring up to that demand. I hope that he will consider that carefully.

Ms. Harman: rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: What is the extent of the Secretary of State's co-operation with other Ministers and their cooperation with him, and what consultations take place on issues such as fuel conservation? The Right to Fuel campaign recently drew attention to the immense difficulties that are experienced in the conjunction of the Departments of Health and Social Security, Energy and the Environment, all of which are directly involved when it comes to trying to initiate sensible schemes. Some pilot projects have been extremely successful and could be built


upon, but there have been immense bureaucratic difficulties in trying to co-ordinate that activity. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that carefully.
Basic resources and basic pension rights are related factors and I understand that we are talking about potentially massive sums. However, I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind that the Social Security Advisory Committee has observed that if he does nothing more than peg benefits and pensions to prices, it is inevitable that the gap between benefits and pensions and earnings will widen as earnings leap ahead year after year. That prospect is not acceptable to us and it would not be acceptable to those outside the House. If the gap is allowed to widen too far it will lead to the disintegration of the fabric of society. That will be inevitable if it is allowed to continue over a long period.
The Government give me the impression that they are complacent.

Mr. Norman Fowler: indicated dissent

Mr. Kirkwood: The Secretary of State shakes his head. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statistics with interest but I did not receive the feeling from him that he is pulling out all the stops to deal with the short-term and long-term difficulties. He should give the House a commitment that he will set up an interdepartmental working party to consider some of the problems. He should enter into urgent discussions about the short-term problems with his colleagues outside and within the Department.
The severe weather single payment regulations are subject to three tests. The first test involves the period of severe weather and that is where the real difficulty arises. There is no definition of "period" and there is no definition of "severe" the Secretary of State could abandon the first condition and rely on the remaining two. They provide that fuel costs have to be shown to be greater than the savings that are available to meet the costs and that the amount of additional consumption has been greater year on year. I accept that the scheme has to have some qualifying features but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman could abandon the first test. He could go even further than that next year. It is clear that we shall have to face these problems next year and the right hon. Gentleman could declare the whole period from December to March as a period of severe weather qualifying for benefit. He could put the onus on the Department to show that there has not been severe weather. If these changes were made, we might produce a system that could be seen to be capable of delivering sensible amounts of resources in a way that would meet needs.
The Government have shown complacency recently by withdrawing heating allowance moneys from the elderly poor by changing the supplementary benefit available scale margins and by reducing central heating allowances. These acts have compounded the problem.
Increases in fuel costs in relation to increases in the retail price index have been disproportionately high. The figures that appear in the United Kingdom Energy Digest —they are the most recent that I can find—show that the RPI increased by 67 per cent. from 1979 to 1984 while coal and coke prices increased by 100 per cent., gas charges by 121 per cent. and electricity charges by 79 per cent. Heating oil, including paraffin, feature in the list.

The majority of my constituents who have difficulty in meeting fuel bills use this source of heating, which causes condensation problems and leads to housing and environmental difficulties. The figures suggest that the RPI is not a sensible measure for pensioners who face large increases in fuel prices. That is something else that the right hon. Gentleman should consider carefully.
My view is reinforced by the family expenditure survey of 1984, which showed that the average family in 1984 was spending 11 per cent. more of its total budget on fuel than in 1979 and 9 per cent. less on food. These statistics are frightening, and it should be recognised that they refer only to absolute costs. The most recent figures that I can find that relate to the proportions of the budgets of the retired single pensioner and retired couple that are spent on heating appear in the family expenditure survey of 1982. That survey showed that the single pensioner spent 15 per cent. of his total budget on fuel each week. That is a considerable proportion. If the Secretary of State or any of us had to spend 15 per cent. of our income each week on fuel, something would be done quickly to alleviate the burden.
I do not underestimate the difficulties that face the Secretary of State, but he must sort something out for next year. The exceptionally severe weather payments scheme is causing great heartache and distress and I look to the right hon. Gentleman to put matters right before we are hit by the next winter.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I will comply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your request to be brief.
Everybody grows old—that is a fact of life. There are three groups of elderly people. The first group of people are those who are able to look after themselves, who have made provision and have an occupational pension to supplement their state pension. The second group are those who have nothing but the state pension but are able to look after themselves. They take precautions and read the leaflets such as those published by the Health Education Council and Age Concern. The Age Concern leaflet entitled "Warmth in Winter" contains a number of useful tips and I recommend it to all hon. Members. It discusses money and how to obtain extra supplementary benefit. It discusses home insulation grants. Last year, the city of Nottingham's Labour-controlled council did not take up the full allowance on home insulation grants. The document gives tips on how to save fuel, the right clothes to wear for warmth and tips on safety. It gives sensible, practical advice which the elderly can take on board and states where such advice can be obtained.
The third group of people—with whom the debate is concerned—are those who cannot look after themselves. It is a matter of personal distress that, last week, someone died of hypothermia in Nottingham and that others are suffering and are in hospital. It is reported that two patients went into hospital with their temperatures as low as 26 deg. C—the definition of hypothermia is 35 deg. C. I am pleased to report that both patients survived.
The Opposition blame the Government as though this were a phenomenon which has arisen only since 1979. However, the social services correspondent of The Times said in an article on extra payments:
It is an issue with which no Government in the 40 years of the welfare state has come to terms".


I care about the elderly and we all must work hard for them but one must not turn the issue into a political football. One cannot play politics with the elderly.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: Recently the Government's statisticians said that for every 1 deg drop in average temperature, winter deaths rose by 8,000. It therefore comes as no surprise when the Opposition spokesman says that the number of deaths will rise when the temperature drops.
The figures which are published are different from the number of deaths. Why is this? It boils down to two reasons. First, families do not report deaths from hypothermia because of the shame it will bring to the family. Secondly, it is reported that almost all the hypothermia cases in Nottingham are related to another illness, which lowers the resistance to cold but which has nothing to do with hypothermia.
What can we do to help people who are in distress? The services in Nottingham are excellent and I am pleased to pay tribute to the local services and the Government services. I know of no case in Nottingham of someone being let down by these services. I was told by a local reporter that, last Friday, when the reporter told the social services department that an old person was suffering, within one hour food and bags of coal were given to that person.
Old people's perception of cold tends to diminish as they grow older and they do not realise the danger that they are in. The problem that faces us is finding those people who are suffering and who need our assistance, especially those aged 80 and over. We need reports on such people. Relatives should phone the services when an old person needs help. The charities must be encouraged to carry on with their work. Recently, I went to a presentation by Help the Aged for the introduction of their emergency bleeper Lifeline. If an old person falls over, the bleeper is triggered and the emergency services will check on that old person. They will get the old person into hospital if necessary. I pay tribute to the work of Age Concern in Nottingham, which gives help to people in distress at all hours of the day. Nottingham's Evening Post runs a column "old and cold". It raises money from the public which it can dish out to those who need a little extra. The role of neighbours is important—we need a nosey neighbour scheme rather than a neighbourhood watch scheme. Such a scheme could look after old people.
It is easy to blame the Government. Anyone can say that we should spend more. The pensioners who came along today to put their case, and who did so eloquently, said the same. However, I believe the Government's record stands up to scrutiny. I believe that by keeping inflation at such low figures the Government are doing more to help the elderly than any other campaign. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government's amendment.

Mr. Reg Freeson: At the beginning of the Minister's speech he said that "policy must match the importance of the subject." Nobody would disagree with that. On the contrary, we, and I trust Conservative Members, would advocate that and seek to practise it. However, if we seek to put those words into practice rather than treat them as rehetoric, we must match the objective with the resources. That is where the Government are falling down.
It is acceptable for any Government to take any period in the past 40 years and say that according to the latest available figures more was being done in the various services and areas which the Minister quoted than had been done five years earlier, 10 years earlier or indeed 20 years earlier. All Ministers of successive Governments do the same thing. That is not the test. The test is whether more should and could be done, but is not done. That is the test, and that is where the Government are failing.
I intend to concentrate my remarks on an aspect which was briefly touched on by the Secretary of State and then virtually set aside. He vaguely mentioned the failure to correlate deaths from hypothermia with the levels and extent of central heating systems in Britain, region by region. It was not an effective response to the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for more effective insulation in British homes, especially the homes of the elderly.
I shall pursue the Minister's point about housing. If it is the case that policy should match the importance of the subject and resources need to be applied for that purpose, the Government have continuously failed on housing. They have failed to provide decent homes for the elderly. From figures that I have obtained from the Library it appears that in 1980 about 40,000 additional dwellings were provided for elderly people in the form of sheltered accommodation or single bedroom flats of an appropriate nature. In 1985 that figure dropped to 15,000. These figures are for the public sector, local authorities and housing associations. The figure of 40,000 in 1980 was reduced to 15,000 in 1985 and there is the prospect of a further reduction in 1986. In percentage terms that represents a 60 per cent. drop in the provision of housing for the elderly by housing associations and local authorities.
How, then, can it be said that policy and practice are matching the importance of the subject? I am not interested in arguing whether fewer elderly people live in decent accommodation in 1985 than was the case in 1979 or 1969. Clearly that is the case because housing conditions steadily improve. The test is that of need, and I shall quote some more figures which I hope the House will not find boring, because they represent people in need.
At the same time as that decrease, about 300,000 elderly people are on waiting lists to move. They are prevented from moving into suitable accommodation which would be well heated and insulated during the winter months. The figure of those waiting to move is increasing, while the level of construction and provision of dwellings is decreasing. Moreover, thousands of public sector dwellings are being sold. Fewer public sector dwellings are available today than were available five years ago, not by a few hundreds or thousands, but by hundreds of thousands.
Older people are much more likely to occupy old local authority and private accommodation and less likely to be able to carry out repairs. These public sector properties, which the elderly occupy in disproportionate numbers, need about £19 billion expenditure on repairs and modernisation. How much have the Government provided? I am sorry that the appropriate Minister from the Department of the Environment is not present to listen to the debate. The Government have provided less than £200 million.
According to the Government's condition of property survey, 480,000 dwellings classed as unfit are occupied largely by elderly people. The more unfit they are, the more likely it is that elderly people will live in them. Under this Government, public sector housing starts, whether in new build or buying and modernising old properties, have fallen sharply year after year. That is the reality, not the rhetoric or statement of intent, and something needs to be done about it.
Something must be done to increase the resources available for public sector housing, no matter which party is in government. I do not say that as a party-knocking exercise. Whereas a few years ago local authorities were providing each year 150,000 to 200,000 dwellings by new build or by buying and modernising old properties, today, because of Government restrictions, they are providing about 30,000 dwellings. Who are affected? Large numbers of elderly people, among others, are affected.
In the late 1970s the housing associations were providing 40,000 dwellings a year, the vast bulk of which consisted increasingly of rehabilitated properties. Today the figure is below 20,000 a year, and is likely to fall even further. All the information is available on the record. Again, a disproportionate number of elderly people live in those properties.
The provision of housing is urgent, and it is not merely a matter of making fine speeches. It is not merely a question of the number of dwellings, whatever that number may be, but of their standard. The standard is decreasing, and the first item to be hit is heating and insulation. I challenge any hon. Member to visit the few purchase, conversion and modernisation schemes that are being undertaken by housing associations and local authorities today to see the standards to which they are being compelled to fall. A few years ago, property was being well insulated and central heating systems were being installed, which is important for elderly people and others, no matter what the Secretary of State says. Now, such properties depend for heating on plug-in electric fires because the Department of the Environment prevents authorities from spending money to maintain decent standards. That pushes up costs, reduces heating and insulation standards, and increases the rate of ill health, hypothermia and the expenditure of far too restricted pensions.
The Government have it in their power, as from this afternoon, to do something about two further matters. Besides increasing resources to housing associations, increasing local authority provision for elderly and other people, and improving the standard of provision to ensure decent heating and insulation, the Government should bear in mind the Homes Insulation Act 1978, which enables them to introduce further schemes of insulation grant, well beyond the loft insulation scheme, which was first introduced and is now petering out. The Departments of Health and Social Security, of Energy and of the Environment should get together to improve standards and ensure that resources are available. We are talking not about chucking money away but about investment in decent buildings and homes to help thousands of needy elderly people.
In addition, the Government should enable housing associations to do what the Treasury is stopping them from doing, which is to match public money with private

money, which they could borrow from building societies and banks to enlarge their housing programmes. Because of Government instructions, housing associations are not permitted to introduce private capital to match public capital to increase the rate of construction, purchase and modernisation of houses. Unless such action is taken, this year, next year and for years to come, no matter how many people may benefit from improved conditions, many thousands will not.
In Brent, 20,000 dwellings need modernisation or replacement—that is between 20 and 25 per cent. of the total housing stock—and a disproportionate number of them are occupied by elderly people, who are suffering from draughts, bad heating, bad insulation and bad conditions. If the Government would will the necessary resources, instead of indulging in rhetoric, they could improve the conditions of my constituents and thousands of elderly people suffering from the cold in winters such as this. The Government must take action, not merely quote past statistics. Future needs require to be met, and they are not at present being met.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I speak as the proud and active president of Age Concern in my constituency. All our members have a proud and brave story to tell of their lives, as do pensioners who are not members. Each must be, and is, valued for himself or herself.
The first point that I should like to make is one on which I have campaigned for a considerable time. It continues to concern me very much, and I hope that it causes concern to all hon. Members. I refer to the resources available for pensioners. I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, that pensions are now 6 or 7 per cent. better than they were when the Government came to office. That is a matter for congratulation, not for chiacking.
We must remember that a month's pension is taken up by standing charges. If I could improve one area for pensioners, I would remove standing charges. I hope that all hon. Members would support me in that. We must press British Gas, the electricity boards and all others concerned to remove standing charges. That would make an immediate and important impact on pensioners and their standards of living.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No, I will not give way, but I will be brief.
We must examine the need for more resources for pensioners. The terms of the motion and the speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) remind me of the demands that are made on the resources of pensioners in my constituency in London and beyond. Happily, with the abolition of the GLC, rates are being reduced by the Conservative-controlled borough of Ealing and by other Conservative-controlled boroughs across London. That will substantially help pensioners. Pensioners were badly hit when the Labour-controlled GLC doubled their rates and fares in 1981. Pensioners are not helped by the GLC in its current legal battle, wanting to spend £96 million of ratepayers' money. Why could that money not be given to pensioners, if the GLC professes


to support Londoners? Labour members of the GLC, Labour Members of this House, and Liberal Members for all I know, will go across to the great fireworks parties that the Labour-controlled GLC is setting up to commemorate abolition. That will cost hundreds, thousands, millions of pounds of ratepayers' money. That money will come, in part, from the very elderly who are struggling to pay their rates and heating costs.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Greenway: Labour Members should remember that waste of money when they shed crocodile tears about pensioners. They should tell their colleagues across the river to divert that money into pensioners' pockets. They would then be doing something right for pensioners. Opposition Members should boycott those parties; they are a disgraceful insult to pensioners. All pensioners will suffer and have to pay more rates than they need because of the money that the GLC will waste to mark abolition. Pensioners have already suffered as a result of the huge, expensive campaign that the GLC has run to save itself. That campaign included expenditure of between £10 million and £25 million on the promotion of pensioners' travel passes. Those passes were never in doubt. That campaign was conducted long after the passes had been guaranteed in law.

Mr. Corbyn: They knew what was happening.

Mr. Greenway: Opposition Members do not like to hear this, but they will have to listen to it. Pensioners were mendaciously told by the Labour leader of the GLC that they were going to lose their passes. More resources for pensioners would be available if wasteful campaigns were stopped. If Opposition Members had any sincerity, they would back me on that point.
What would it be like if we had another Labour Government? The Labour Opposition have already stated that their projected programme, if they are elected to office, would cost £24 billion. That would immediately raise VAT to 41 per cent. and so affect pensioners. Pensioners' families would not be able to help them, as the wage earners would be paying 20 per cent. more on the standard rate of tax. Pensioners would have a terrible time if a Labour Government were ever elected. The Labour party's crocodile tears had better return to where they came from. Labour Members need to be more honest and sincere about pensioners.
Last Saturday, in my constituency, I had the pleasure of attending a conference for carers of the elderly and carers of others. I congratulate the Government on the tremendous progress that they have made in creating schemes for carers to relieve those people who have a 24-hour-a-day responsibility looking after the elderly. The carers scheme has grown enormously in the past five years at considerable Government expense. It has not been mentioned today. I must say that that scheme is helping to keep elderly people in reasonable dignity and allowing their carers to have a break. That scheme helps enormously as it oftens allows the carers to go to work and earn a little money to help the very elderly for whom they are caring.
I should like to make a regional and somewhat partisan point. We have heard much from Scottish Labour Members about the need for extra heating allowances for pensioners and others in Scotland. A steady study of

weather charts over the past few weeks will show them, as it has shown me, that the worst of the cold has been in London and the south-east. I hope that there will not be a big diversion of resources to Scotland. If there is, hon. Members with London constituencies will fight against it.
Pensioners always want and need higher pensions. My grandmother lived to be a very old lady and died in her late nineties. She rightly said that no one ever has enough money, no matter whether one is poor or rich. If hon. Members reflect on that they will see the truth in it. My grandmother meant that everyone can conceive of a need. I hope on that basis that the Government will maintain their excellent record of improving pensions in real terms. I hope that the Government will never, as the Labour Government did in 1975 and 1976, take away the pensioners' Christmas bonus. That was a mean thing to do. Only the Labour party would do that and then have representatives stand at the Dispatch Box and shout their mouths off as if they were the pensioners' friends.
The motion refers to this winter as being the worst for 40 years. In 1947 Mr. Emmanuel Shinwell was Minister of Fuel and Power. I remember then, as a small boy, what a terrible time the pensioners had under the Labour Government. They could not buy coal, the lights were off and there was no heating. Why is tonight's motion so arrogant? The Labour party has no record of which to be proud and much of which to be ashamed. That record goes back to 1947 and beyond.
Labour Members should remember what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about 1979. Old people then, like everybody else, could not bury their dead. Conditions were arctic, and they could get no help for love nor money. Those were the conditions that existed when the Labour party was in government and the country will never forget it.

Mr. Ernie Ross: If pensioners, as a group, are worse off than other sections of the community, Scottish pensioners are even worse off than those in England and Wales because climatic conditions are such that 20 to 30 per cent. more fuel is needed to heat a home in Scotland than is needed in southern England. Hypothermia and cold-related illnesses are common in areas with severe climatic conditions. Deaths from hypothermia in Scotland represent 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. Whether the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) likes it or not, Scottish hon. Members will still bring these points to the House and remind him of them.
The difference in climate in Scotland, which the Government have recognised, bears out the demands that Scotland's pensioners had been making unsuccessfully until last week. The pensioners believe that, as they live in an agreed cold climate, that does not mean that they have become acclimatised to the cold. In practical terms, the problem is that Scottish pensioners are facing more severe effects from underheating their homes, given the colder climate, than their counterparts who live in southern England.
Our old people experience many problems with respect to their heating costs. There is concern about those at risk from hypothermia and other illnesses because of excessive economising on fuel. There is concern about those who live in cold conditions but, fortunately, do not die. There is concern about the hardship sufferred by those paying


their bills, but with great difficulty. There is concern about those who fail to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. About 150,000 Scottish pensioners claim supplementary benefit, but 75,000 Scottish pensioners entitled to receive supplementary benefit fail to claim it. These are the elderly among us who are losing out, not only on supplementary benefit but on the extra help available for heating.
We all know pensioners who will not claim supplementary benefit because of the stigma attached to means-tested benefits. They have been brought up during the years of the parish, the free books and the free school meals and in their retirement are not prepared to go with the begging bowl asking for more. Throughout their lives, those elderly people have contributed to our wealth as a nation only to witness its sale by the Government for a short-term, highly dubious financial gain from which they will not benefit. That is a massive sale of assets which should have been retained to provide the national income that would have protected our pensioners, giving them the peace of mind to enjoy a retirement not only of dignity but, just as important, of reasonable comfort.
Many pensioners deny themselves the means-tested help available because of their pride. Many others are unable to obtain help through the supplementary benefit system because their modest occupational pension takes them above the needs level set by the Government. As a group, pensioners have a lower than average income. The Government's duty should be to ensure that pensioners are made aware of their entitlements and that the highest priority within the social security system is given to ensuring that those entitlements are taken up.
It is not just whether they can heat and feed themselves that now concerns our elderly in Scotland. Pensioners in Scotland are equally concerned and puzzled about the Government's rate reform intentions set out in the recently announced Green Paper "Paying for Local Government". They are puzzled about where the Government imagine the sudden affluence will come to meet this new demand. The purse is already empty. How many single pensioners are living in the four-bedroomed house in Scotland which is the much-quoted example to show who will benefit from the change in the method of gathering rates?
The reality is much more stark and frightening. For every pensioner in receipt of housing benefit, 400,000 in Scotland will be worse off because they will have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates. Just what do the Government think pensioners should now give up to meet this extra financial burden? Perhaps our pensioners will shortly be reminded that they have a Christmas bonus which could be used. Perhaps they will be told that soap coupons could be saved and exchanged or that the stamps from Brooke Bond tea packets could be collected in a book to pay for the new rate demands. This is a mean-minded decision by a penny-pinching Government who show their disregard for those members of our society who have contributed to its wealth and health and ask only that that contribution should be recognised by allowing them to be equal members of our society now that they have retired.
It is not just a matter of whether pensioners can heat their homes. Some of our pensioners are living in underheated houses because they have money in the bank to bury them when they are dead. On 5 February 1982, I introduced a private Member's Bill to increase the death

grant from £30 to £190 in January 1983 and to require the Secretary of State to review the death grant on 1 January in each subsequent year so that it would retain its value in relation to the general level of prices. The Bill aimed to abolish discrimination based on age.
Conservative Members talked the Bill out. They would not wish to be reminded now of the part they played in sabotaging that modest attempt to give security and peace of mind to our pensioners. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who, unfortunately, is not with us, spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of the Government. He said:
I might have preferred to debate the issues before us after the Government had completed the review of death grant arrangements which has been in train since 1980. Unfortunately, that was not possible. Once the review is completed, I or my right hon. Friend will make a statement on the outcome, which I am sure will give us a full opportunity for constructive debate.
He concluded:
We are more than conscious of the cases that are brought to our attention where hardship is experienced, because of the ever-widening gap between the level of death grant and the basic cost of a funeral. I assure the House that we shall come forward with our proposals as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 5 February 1982; Vol. 17, c. 692–8.]
Now we know—the Government's proposals, after four years' deliberations, are straight out of the monetarists' top drawer: "It is so meaningless. We cannot cut it any more, so we will just abolish it." There speaks the caring, sharing Tory Government.
The picture of an elderly person sleeping on a sofa piled high with blankets in the only room with a heater is not an unusual or extreme one. The reality of life in Scotland for pensioners on low incomes is that their activities are severely curtailed. Winter days may be shorter for all of us but, for many of our elderly people, these days are shortened out of necessity. They stay in bed until midday and go back to bed after teatime. They deserve much more from life than enforced periods of bedtime.
I hope that many of our pensioners are around on that real day of accounting when the Government go to the country. They will not forget the way in which the Government have treated them in the past six years. They will repay the Government through the ballot box.

Mr. David Winnick: The last few weeks of intense cold have been a nightmare for those on the lowest incomes. The poorer pensioners have to endure much suffering because of their inability to keep their homes anywhere near adequately heated. Gas and electricity prices have increased substantially over the years, at well above the rate of inflation.
When listening to the complacent speech of the Secretary of State, it was difficult to understand why there was so much anxiety in the House and outside. At least the Opposition have tried to explain the justified concern about what has been happening. Since the Conservative party has been in office, the retail prices index has increased by just under 76 per cent. However, in the same period, gas prices have increased by 131·6 per cent. and electricity prices by more than 101 per cent.
I am strongly opposed to large increases in fuel prices. As we know, that is a way for Government to raise revenue through indirect taxation. The burden falls most heavily on those with the smallest incomes. That policy is wrong. If fuel is so expensive, where is the sense and justice in the fact that all people pay the same, regardless of income?


If it is right to give help with rent and rates, why not introduce a fuel rebate scheme during the winter months for those on the smallest incomes and limit the amount that is rebated in price?
It is wrong that many of our constituents—the poorer pensioners and those on the smallest incomes earning perhaps £50 or £60 a week—should pay precisely the same for gas and electricity as Cabinet Ministers and those who earn more than those Ministers. That is why there has been so much hardship and suffering during the past month. People on small incomes have not been able to keep themselves properly warm.
Pensioners on supplementary benefit face much uncertainty. They must obviously wonder whether the exceptionally severe weather payment will be made in their area when a really cold spell starts. In many parts of Britain that payment has been authorised two or more weeks after the very cold weather spell started. I understand that in most cases the payment will be backdated to 6 February. Until the announcement was made, the elderly on the smallest incomes did not know whether they could use more fuel, because they did not know whether any extra assistance would be given. What is more, until the bill arrives they are not in a position to apply for the extra assistance. They do not know how this year's bill will compare with last year's. Altogether, there is a great deal of uncertainty, which has led to much suffering.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said, retired people are frightened to keep the heat on anywhere near to the level that it should be. They fear not disconnection but receiving a fuel bill which they simply will not be able to afford. Thousands of retired people living on the smallest incomes leave their homes cold, and heat only one room. They go to bed early, and when they are up they often wrap themselves in blankets, simply because of their justified fear about the fuel bill.
We must not forget the many retired people whose incomes are just above supplementary benefit levels. In some cases it is only a few pence above; in others a few pounds. They receive housing benefit because of their inadequate income. It is important to bear in mind—I hope that the Secretary of State does so—that these pensioners do not receive any assistance with their heating bills. What are they supposed to do? Ministers who have been interviewed on radio and television have not been able to give an adequate reply to that question. The plight of about 2 million pensioners receiving housing benefit but not in receipt of supplementary benefit is acute.
As we know, all heating additions as such are to be abolished, and although the Government argue that at the end of the day people are not likely to be worse off, some will be. The Government have admitted that some will be losers and some will be gainers. I fear that some of the people about whom we are particularly concerned will also lose as a result of the Social Security Bill. We make strong criticisms of the mechanics of the exceptionally severe weather payments, but the Government intend to abolish it.
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, but the Social Security Bill now in Committee will mean that somebody in a winter such as this will have to apply to the DHSS local office. Any assistance will come out of discretionary cash or limited social funds. It is likely that any assistance given will be by way of a loan. What good will that be to people who are counting every penny of

their small income? I cannot see these pensioners being keen to obtain a loan, and certainly not one that is likely to be paid off out of their weekly benefit. However bad the situation is now, it will be even worse as a result of the changes that the Government have introduced.
Furthermore, by undermining and eroding SERPS the Government are ensuring that future generations of pensioners will be faced with similar problems facing those of today. If SERPS had been allowed to continue, there would have been a reasonable chance that a large number of people now in employment would, once they retired, have an adequate income. However, because the Government are undermining and eroding the scheme, more generations of poverty-stricken pensioners will have to endure the hardship and suffering that so many have endured during January and February this year.
The Government have shown little or no concern for the acute problem of many people on the smallest incomes, particularly pensioners, in the harsh winter months. They have quoted figures, but the Tory Front Bench, and the Tory Back Benches too, have shown little understanding of what is needed. It is a disgrace that people in our society should have to experience such conditions, especially as many of them served in the last war, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said. Is this their due—that they should have to endure such suffering? What sort of society are we when we cannot organise such matters properly, and when we allow so many people to live out their lives in such misery, when extra help should be given when needed? The Government should be condemned, and I hope that all my hon. Friends will support the motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the first Front Bench speech will begin at a quarter to 7. Five hon. Members still wish to take part in the debate, and if they all speak briefly I hope to be able to call them all.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: We have heard from the Opposition Benches the inevitable cry that nothing is being done and the Government are uninterested. However, that is belied by all the facts about what the Government have done in managing to keep control. Of inflation, which is so vital, and in recognising their commitments to increase pensions and to provide heating additions. The Opposition still claim that the Government have done nothing.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke about fuel prices, but he should recall that it was distortion of fuel prices to the domestic consumer that caused the readjustment of prices, to bring about equality, and forced up the prices. That subsidy was indiscriminate and went across the board. Even the benefits that it produced were not going to the most deserving people.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) because he spoke about the important topic of the insulation of houses. This Government, not the Labour Government, put great emphasis on increasing the take-up of improvement grants on houses. When some improvement grants were increased to 90 per cent., the take-up also increased.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that advertising of the heating allowances for


special conditions would be introduced, and that the Government will look into economic support and the social fund to see how we can tackle these problems. That is important in this complex problem. It is not automatic that the people who suffer in the severe weather are those on housing benefit, or in the worst housing conditions. The upturn in the number of deaths in bad weather applies almost irrespective of whether the victims come from inner cities or deprived areas or better accommodation in other parts of the country.
We have to ask ourselves exactly what the problem is and how we can best alleviate it. Sadly, money is a problem but, as my hon,. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) said, it is also important to identify those who are in genuine need and do not have the heat, warmth comfort and other facilities that they need. Although the social service and other departments have expanded, and the voluntary services also do a great deal in that identification process, much still needs to be done to make the best use of the existing facilities. Anything that can be done to improve the publicity about benefits generally should be seriously considered.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to those with incomes slightly above the qualifying figure for housing benefit. These people are not used to turning to the Department of Health and Social Security for social security. They will be wary about using their limited incomes to heat their homes. My experience is that many people could obtain rate rebates or housing benefit but that they do not apply. The help that is already available to them is not being fully taken up. Advertising would play a major part in persuading them to take up the help that is already there.
The Opposition scare people by saying that the state earnings-related pension is to be abolished. The Government have given a guarantee that those who retire during this century will not be affected by the changes to the state earnings-related pension scheme. The Opposition, however, say that the SERPS reduction is imminent and that it will create immediate difficulties. The Government have not let down the pensioners.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will look at all possible ways, through the social services and the voluntary organisations, of making known the help that is already available to those who may need it.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: It is generally accepted that the poorest sections of the community include the elderly. Precisely because they are poor they are much more vulnerable to the effects of winter weather than are other people. Most hon. Members have visited African villages and other undeveloped countries where one finds that the dignity of old people is much more prevalent and obvious than it is in this country. The community collectively regards the poor as its responsibility and looks after them as a family.
Party political points have been scored in this debate. I have no objection to that. I make such points, and I shall probably make one or two before I sit down. However, it is important to remember that the difference between basic pension and average earnings is far greater now than it was a few years ago and that it is getting worse. That is why

the Labour Government introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme. The drop from average earnings to basic pension was so great that it meant almost immediate poverty. SERPS was designed specifically to reduce that drop, if not to eliminate it.
The great tragedy is that this Government quickly got their eye upon SERPS. They thought that it would prove too costly. Therefore they sought to abolish it, but public opinion was almost unanimous in attacking the Government's proposals, so they watered them down. Nevertheless, the Social Security Bill exercise is designed drastically to cut public expenditure upon social services.
The Secretary of State for Social Services said that the total provision for social security had been increased from £7·5 billion in 1979 to £16·5 billion in 1985. That is true. However, the implication was that that provision must be cut. I take the opposite view. If the will is there the means are there, whatever Government are in power. They can do exactly what they like with the cash. They can spend it upon defence, agriculture, education, roads or housing.
I come back to the proposition that I have always put forward whenever the House has debated matters such as this: that if the will is there and adequate, basic pension can be provided. That proposition is fundamental to this debate. If there were an adequate, basic pension we should not be talking about heating allowances or subsidies of one kind or another. The basic pension would then be at least double what it is now. Public opinion polls have proved that if people were asked to pay increased national insurance contributions, or more income tax, or a combination of both, to achieve that end they would be prepared to do so.
I hope that the Government will take on board the fact that it is no good fiddling around with heating allowances, giving one kind of dribble and drabble here, there and everywhere, by which I mean the voluntary bodies and the local authorities. Give them a basic pension that is adequate for their needs and all these problems will be solved.

Mr. Roy Galley: How easy it is to come to this House time after time and cry for more. It would be understandable if the Opposition cried for more only for the pensioners, the disabled and one or two specific categories, but they come to this House and cry for more for every conceivable subject under the sun.
It is clear from the speeches of some Opposition Members that they recognise that there has been some improvement in the position of pensioners. The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that that is not relevant to this debate. I suggest to him that it is relevant and that the position is improving. But that does not mean that there are grounds for complacency and that we should not seek greater improvements. Pensions are higher now than they have ever been before and their purchasing power is higher than it has ever been before. Nevertheless, we should seek to increase them. However, Opposition speeches would lead one to believe that there has not been a considerable improvement during the last few years in pensions or in health services.
If one is not responsible for setting the priorities it is easy to cry for more for everything. This Government have given the highest priority to health and pensions. When the Labour Government gave in to the clamour for more from every single group in the community the result was


bankruptcy and massive inflation. The Opposition have to ask themselves how that helped pensioners. Many pensioners have small savings, upon which they place great store. They want to have a few hundred pounds with which to deal with emergencies and to cope with their funeral arrangements. Because the last Labour Government gave in to the demands for more for everything, their savings were eroded by half.
There has also been much weeping about energy costs. However, during the period of the Labour Government the price of electricity rose by over 170 per cent. That is not caring for the elderly. Caring for the elderly means keeping inflation under control and creating a real improvement in their standard of living. That is what this Government have done.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to the social services. In my part of the country those services are absolutely superb. That does not mean that they cannot be improved. There are groups in our society, for example the physically disabled, in particular the young physically disabled, for whom we ought to do more. We ought to look at what can be provided for them. The number of home helps has been increased. Furthermore, the number of day care places has risen and the amount of sheltered accommodation has been increased. The number of main meals that are served has risen, as has the number of luncheon clubs. The voluntary effort that enables a more flexible response to be made to the changing circumstances of the elderly has also improved.
Do Opposition Members put into practice what they preach when the money is available? The answer is no. At present the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council has £15 million in the kitty, money that could go back to the ratepayers or to the district councils to assist in the provision of better social services. Is it going to do that? Not a bit of it. It is going to fritter away that money on all sorts of ludicrous schemes, such as building a theatre for £1 million in Huddersfield. When it comes to the crunch, what we get from the Opposition are words, not deeds. The fact is that the pensioners' position when the Labour party was in power was much worse.
I must make one important point to my right hon. Friend which picks up a comment made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. When we abolish the heating addition and institute a pensioner premium, there will be a psychological and perception problem. It is important for my right hon. Friend to look at the possibility of tailoring that pensioner premium more closely to the costs and overall needs of the elderly and tying it, not necessarily to the RPI, but to a more specific index.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that in the present weather crisis the Government had shown little concern. That is a travesty of what has happened. There was a ready response in that practically the whole country is now covered by severe weather payments, which will be backdated.
The situation for pensioners has improved, it is improving, and it must improve more. We must continue to give a high priority to pensioners, but one cannot do everything overnight. If we try to do everything overnight, we shall end up with very large cuts in health services and draconian measures in social services such as were taken by the Labour Government in 1977.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In answer to what has been said by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley), if society cannot afford to pay its pensioners, who can it afford to pay, and what are we not paying them?
Pensioners in this country receive almost the lowest pension paid in any country in Europe. They live in the coldest homes with the highest rate of death through hypothermia, and have the worst possible conditions of all pensioners. Is that because the country is so poor that it cannot afford the pension, as Conservative Members seem to be saying, or is it because the Government prefer to spend money on other things, such as Trident submarines and the nuclear missile programme? It is question of choice. If we wish to end the monstrous death rate of pensioners every winter, something else has to go. I suggest that it is the arms programme, and I suggest the nuclear arms programme at that.
There are at present 9 million pensioners in the country, and the number is increasing. Roughly half those pensioners are below the official poverty level which is 140 per cent. above supplementary benefit level. Half are pensioners living in a state of penury and half in a state of extreme fear. We should stop looking upon pensioners as a problem in society, and we should start looking at them as people who have made an enormous contribution throughout their working lives and still have a contribution to make; they do not wish to be patronised, but they do wish to be able to live in some decency.
In areas such as the one I represent, a whole plethora of cuts in various aspects of Government spending is hitting the pensioners' living standard. There is a lack of a decent basic pension. That is the first requirement. Secondly, there are cuts in the health services, which fall disproportionately on pensioners. If Conservative Members think there have been no cuts in the Health Service, they should come to my constituency and see the closed and boarded-up hospitals. The same thing is happening in every other inner urban area.
There is also the loss of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties arid of the assistance that they have given to pensioners' organisations. They have managed to bring in subsidised or free travel for the elderly which is not available in many Conservative and Liberal-controlled county authorities.
The immediate issue to which the motion addresses itself is hypothermia and the cost of fuel for pensioners. A great deal can be done. The Government choose to use the fuel pricing mechanisms of gas and electricity as a form of taxation on the population of the country. Because of the way that system operates, the smallest consumers pay the most. Because of the system of standing charges pensioners are penalised for being old and for wanting warm homes. Because they cannot afford to pay the bills they do not heat their homes properly, and many of them die each winter. I find it nauseating, to put it mildly, that Conservative Members should be concerned about hypothermia yet do nothing about fuel prices, and that they have not supported the measures to abolish standing charges for the elderly or done anything to alleviate the plight of pensioners.
Unless something is done very quickly, the wringing of hands that has happened in the last hour and a half will happen again next spring and the spring after that when we see again the monstrous death rate for pensioners. We


must stop patronising pensioners. We must start by working with those splendid pensioners' action groups and others that are politically organising and seeking decent pensions and living standards for themselves. They are the people whom I believe will decide the outcome of the next election. I very much hope that they will have the opportunity to do so.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: This has been the coldest winter for 40 years. It is therefore as stupid as it is irrelevant for the Secretary of State and many of his hon. Friends to come here and bleat on about what previous Labour Governments have done in other years. We are talking about this year, which is the coldest for 40 years and in which the Government's own medical statistician has said that 200 pensioners are dying every day.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) said that the Government had made a ready response to the problem. It is a year since we last had these debates, a year since the Minister of State said that the system of paying exceptionally severe weather allowances was "a shambles". What did the Government do about it? Damn all, quite frankly, is what the Government did about it.
It was December 1985 before new guidance was issued, the guidance that is now in place. All that the Government can say about it is that heating costs are met and that they have been doing a good job because they have put up the regular sums that people get through heating additions. But those are payments for normal heating for normal needs, and are not intended to cope with conditions of extreme cold. I understand that the Department used to recommend 21 deg C as a suitable temperature for the elderly and had to abandon it because it found that over 90 per cent. of pensioners could not afford to heat their homes to that temperature. Even on the basis of normal need we know that there is a problem, never mind on the basis of exceptional need. The Secretary of State said that special help cannot be a substitute for the payments. Nobody is asking for this as a substitute; we are demanding the payment in addition to the sums normally paid because people need heating in additional ways over and above what is normal.
The implication of the Government's attitude is that the system is now working all right with the new guidance. Can they really believe that? I spoke to a pensioner from Kent last week who told me that he rang his area office when the temperature was minus 22 deg F, and the office said that it was not making exceptional severe weather payments. He rang the office the week after when the temperature was minus 12 deg F. By then the office had worked out the system, and was prepared to make such payments. Even the Government's own local offices do not understand the system, as the Government well know.
The Government commissioned some research fairly recently to evaluate these schemes. It showed that 90 per cent. of the pensioners who should be entitled to the allowance do not receive it because they do not know about the allowance, because they cannot find out or because they are turned down. The research showed that this is because of the complexity of the system.
I have a copy of the questionnaire which is sent to anybody who applies for the allowance. It has 20 separate

questions. It includes, for example, a request to forward the bills for the same period for the last two years, how much savings people normally hold, what they would normally expect to pay for their fuel, whether they have had any recent period of illness and, if so, for how long, whether they have had to use more fuel and how they have managed to buy the extra fuel they have needed. There are 20 such questions which have to be answered satisfactorily when people make the claim. The complexity of the system saves the Government about £25 million a year in supplementary benefit.
The Government say that it is up to the chief adjudication officer to suggest to local offices what action to take. But it was crystal clear that local offices had been waiting for a lead. The day that the chief adjudication officer put out his guidance, Ministers were delighted to tell us that local offices were falling over themselves to declare that theirs was an area in which payment could be made. I think that it was the Under-Secretary who said, "As I speak, fresh news is coming in of more tens of offices which are making this payment."
Does the Secretary of State imagine that the chief adjudication officer was not paying attention to what was going on in the House when, day after day, Labour Members, and occasionally Conservative Members, raised the problems of their constituents and the only answer that they received was that heating allowances had been increased and that the Government thought they were doing a good job? Where were the moving pleas from the Government Front Bench, the expressions of concern and the hope that the chief adjudication officer would be listening to what was said and might take some action? Not a word. Then the Minister says that it was up to the adjudication officer and there was no need for Government action.
We called on the Government to publicise the allowances. Only a week ago they resisted that idea and said that they were sure that the scheme would be all over the papers and that everyone would know. We welcome the Secretary of State's belated decision to go for some Government advertising.
Let me draw the Government's attention to the research that they commissioned, which points out that it is completely unnecessary to go through the farrago of making people fill out a questionnaire with 20 different questions and apply to the local office. The report says:
The department knows exactly who needs help and there is no need for this bureaucratic system at all.
The Government have been advised that about 3·5 million pensioners could get that help simply by the Government looking through their own records.
Several hon. Members have suggested that we cannot find the money for everything and they talked about throwing money around, and so on. Let me draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Halifax the fact that in 1984–85 the gas levy—the special payment demanded by the Government from the gas industry—was £500 million. The electricity levy was £406 million. That is an example of money being thrown around. It is an example of money put on fuel prices by the Government.
At least the Secretary of State acknowledged that there is a serious problem in this area. Nevertheless, the Government have cut funds for the home insulation scheme, which seems a rather strange way of recognising the problem. He suggested that in future it would be better because people may be able to make claims from the social


fund. He did not remind the House that they will be able to apply for loans from the social fund only if they are already drawing income support. He did not point out that if they have as much as £500 saved for their funeral, they will not be able to claim a penny. Nor did he remind the House that, under the Social Security Bill, which establishes a social fund, the Government are cutting people's pension entitlement by half, bringing it down to less than the basic pension will purchase today. Through that proposal and others in the Bill millions of pensioners will be losers in the short and long term.
As the motion says, the plight of pensioners is great, but unless and until we remove the Government they will find no remedy.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The Opposition have clone a genuine service by bringing the subject to the House for debate and enabling at least some more serious contributions to be made to what is undoubtedly a serious and difficult issue. I pay tribute in that respect to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and to a number of my hon. Friends who have spoken.
But from the Opposition Front Bench we have not only not had a serious contribution to the debate of a serious subject, but we have had the most disgracefully misleading use of statistics that I have heard in the House for some considerable time. I shall give my figures. They are exactly the same as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's figures which are good enough to bear repeating. Indeed, they are important enough to bear repeating.
Let me remind the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) what the Leader of the Opposition asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time earlier this week. That too is worth repeating. Any team that has the Leader of the Opposition on its side needs a jolly good goalkeeper. He asked the Prime Minister:
Why … has our death rate during the winter been three times that of the United States of America and four times that of Sweden?"—[Official Report, 4 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 149.]
That is a very good question, but as soon as we looked into the data on which it must have been based we found that it could only have been based on those for the three years between 1976 and 1979 when the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were in office.
Then we had the misuse of statistics about hypothermia deaths this winter by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. He referred to a tenfold increase in deaths from hypothermia. Let me repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
There is absolutely no evidence of a ten-fold increase. The only basis on which that statement could have been made is a total misreading of figures which compare 1975 with 1985.
When one looks at the figures properly it is clear that it was the winter of 1979 when most deaths with mention of hypothermia took place during the first three months of the year. I hope that in due course the hon. Gentleman will apologise for the way in which he sought to mislead the House and the country tonight.
Let me move on quickly because I want to be nice to the hon. Gentleman as far as I can. I want to congratulate him—I would be grateful if I could have his attention for a moment.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to him.

Mr. Newton: I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, which is why I halve been refuting some of the points that he made. However. I want to congratulate the hon. Gentleman because it is nearly an auspicious anniversary in his life. In March 1976 a report in The Times said:
Old age pensioners shouted down Mr. Meacher, Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Services, yesterday as he tried to explain the Government's record on pensioners.
That was 10 years ago.
Something else happened roughly 10 years ago and I was put in mind of it by the strictures of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on the complexity of the exceptionally severe weather payment regulations and the problems associated with it. I am certainly not going to defend those regulations as a miracle of simplicity, but I have here a booklet published by the Department of Energy in December 1978 on the electricity discount scheme 1979. That was the Labour Government's answer to not dissimilar problems at that time. It is 17 pages long. It contains some 60 questions and I can convey something of its flavour by quoting one or two. One question reads:
I am in dispute with my electricity board about my bill. If this is not settled before the scheme ends how can I make sure I claim my discount?
The answer was:
Write immediately to the electricity division, the Department of Energy.
Question:
I applied for a Rate/Rent Rebate/Rent allowance but did not hear from my local authority until after 30th June. What should I do?
Answer:
Write to the Department of Energy Electricity Division".
What a farce that was.
It is a pity that we cannot use visual aids in the House. I have here the visual description of the electricity discount scheme sent to the post offices to try to tell them how to operate it. It was a nightmare of complexity which nobody understood, which was ineffective, and which the incoming Conservative Government got rid of in favour of a policy of systematically and substantially increasing the regular weekly payments of heating addition to greatly increased numbers of people.
That is the point that the hon. Members for Oldham, West and for Derby, South have persistently refused to focus on in this argument. Wherever one looks, there has been a substantial increase since 1979 in the regular extra weekly help given to virtually every pensioner in receipt of supplementary benefit—far more than those helped by Labour Members—to the severely sick and disabled and families with young children, to the point at which, on any reasonable reading of the combination of what is in the basic supplementary benefit rate and the heating additions, any supplementary pensioner householder over 85 receives about £600 a year—£150 a quarter—to help with paying the heating bills.
That is the right way to be giving such help. That is the record on which we stand and on which we shall seek to build. We have no need at all to apologise to Her Majesty's Opposition in the light of their miserable record in the self-same subject.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 283.

Division No. 94]
[7 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Golding, John


Alton, David
Gould, Bryan


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Ashdown, Paddy
Hardy, Peter


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Harman, Ms Harriet


Ashton, Joe
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnett, Guy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Home Robertson, John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hoyle, Douglas


Bell, Stuart
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bermingham, Gerald
Janner, Hon Greville


Bidwell, Sydney
John, Brynmor


Blair, Anthony
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Boyes, Roland
Kennedy, Charles


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lamond, James


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Leighton, Ronald


Bruce, Malcolm
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Caborn, Richard
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Livsey, Richard


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Canavan, Dennis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Loyden, Edward


Cartwright, John
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clarke, Thomas
McGuire, Michael


Clay, Robert
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clelland, David Gordon
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Maclennan, Robert


Cohen, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Conlan, Bernard
Madden, Max


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbett, Robin
Martin, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Meacher, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Meadowcroft, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Michie, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mikardo, Ian


Cunningham, Dr John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Deakins, Eric
Nellist, David


Dixon, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dobson, Frank
O'Brien, William


Dormand, Jack
O'Neill, Martin


Douglas, Dick
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dubs, Alfred
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Park, George


Eadie, Alex
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pavitt, Laurie


Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)
Pendry, Tom


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Penhaligon, David


Ewing, Harry
Pike, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Faulds, Andrew
Prescott, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Randall, Stuart


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Redmond, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Forrester, John
Robertson, George


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rooker, J. W.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Freud, Clement
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Garrett, W. E.
Rowlands, Ted


George, Bruce
Ryman, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian





Sheerman, Barry
Tinn, James


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Torney, Tom


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Wareing, Robert


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Weetch, Ken


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Michael


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Snape, Peter
Wilson, Gordon


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Woodall, Alec


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stott, Roger



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Thorne, Stan (Preston)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Critchley, Julian


Aitken, Jonathan
Crouch, David


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Dicks, Terry


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Tom
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Ashby, David
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Robert


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Baldry, Tony
Fallon, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Farr, Sir John


Bellingham, Henry
Favell, Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Fletcher, Alexander


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Fookes, Miss Janet


Benyon, William
Forman, Nigel


Best, Keith
Forth, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Franks, Cecil


Blackburn, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Galley, Roy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bright, Graham
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brinton, Tim
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Gow, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grant, Sir Anthony


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, Harry


Budgen, Nick
Gregory, Conal


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Butterfill, John
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grylls, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Cash, William
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Chope, Christopher
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Churchill, W. S.
Harris, David


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Harvey, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hawksley, Warren


Cockeram, Eric
Hayes, J.


Colvin, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Cope, John
Hayward, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Corrie, John
Henderson, Barry






Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hickmet, Richard
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mellor, David


Hill, James
Merchant, Piers


Hind, Kenneth
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hirst, Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Holt, Richard
Miscampbell, Norman


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Howard, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Murphy, Christopher


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Newton, Tony


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Norris, Steven


Jackson, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ottaway, Richard


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Parris, Matthew


Key, Robert
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Portillo, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Price, Sir David


Knox, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lamont, Norman
Raffan, Keith


Latham, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lester, Jim
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lightbown, David
Rowe, Andrew


Lilley, Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lyell, Nicholas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McCrindle, Robert
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Maclean, David John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Major, John
Shersby, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Silvester, Fred


Malone, Gerald
Sims, Roger


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mates, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mather, Carol
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas





Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Spencer, Derek
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walden, George


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Steen, Anthony
Wall, Sir Patrick


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Walters, Dennis


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Watson, John


Sumberg, David
Watts, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitfield, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Terlezki, Stefan
Wiggin, Jerry


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wolfson, Mark


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Yeo, Tim


Tracey, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trippier, David



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the difficulties faced by elderly people during periods of severe weather; commends the Government's record of paying higher retirement pensions to more pensioners than ever before, of increasing the supplementary benefit scale rates, of providing for the first time automatic heating additions of £2·20 per week for all supplementary pensioner households over 65 years of age, and of introducing a higher rate of £5·45 per week for such pensioners over 85 years of age; notes with approval that payments under the exceptionally severe weather scheme are now available throughout mainland Britain; and observes that the present relative stability in fuel prices demonstrates the value of firm control over inflation and is in stark contrast to the increase of 170 per cent. in electricity prices over the period of the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979.

London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I should announce that I have not selected any of the Instructions.

Mr. Thorne: London's docklands have been in decline for many years. An early proposal to help with the regeneration of the area by extending the London Underground through the docklands to Thamesmead had to be abandoned because of the high cost—more than £400 million at today's prices.
A start has been made to revitalise the docklands. By 1985 more than £1 billion had been invested. More than 200 companies have set up businesses, 4,700 new jobs have been created and 1,300 jobs have been preserved. Moreover, 2,000 private homes have been built, of which 42 per cent. have been bought by residents of dockland boroughs.
There has also been a considerable improvement in the road structure. Most important of all, London Regional Transport is constructing a new light railway through the area. Canary wharf is a site of some 71 acres in the Isle of Dogs, two miles to the east of the City. A £1·5 billion development of 10 million sq ft of offices and supporting accommodation is planned by an American consortium. The need for an extension of the City is well known and arises principally from the limited amount of space left to expand it as a financial centre. The consortium has insisted that the development will not go ahead without a rail link from Canary wharf to the Bank, as the existing terminus at Tower Gateway will not tie in with the development physically. Nor will it tie in with the City in the minds of those who would wish to set up business or work at Canary wharf. Hence the promotion of this private Bill.
The Bill is promoted by London Regional Transport. Its powers and responsibilities are set out in the London Regional Transport Act 1984, section 2 of which provides that it shall be the general duty of London Regional Transport, in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State, and in conjunction with the British Railways Board, to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London. The Act also confers a power to promote Bills. A private Bill has been promoted by LRT and its predecessors in almost every Session since 1963, when the London Transport Board was set up. The present Bill has been modelled on the earlier Acts of LRT's predecessors.
Powers to build the initial railway from Tower Gateway to Island Gardens and from Stratford to Poplar were acquired by the then London Transport Executive through the normal parliamentary procedure for railway construction—the London Docklands Railway Act 1984 and London Docklands Railway Act 1985. Responsibility for funding the railway, cash limited by the Government at £77 million outturn, was through the London Docklands Development Corporation and the Greater London council. The GLC role has subsequently been assumed by London Regional Transport. A small project team, locally based in Poplar, and reporting to a joint LRT-LDDC

board, is supervising the design-and-construct contract which was let on a fixed price basis to the General Electric Company/Mowlem railway group. The contract is in the form of a single package covering design and construction and nearly all of the equipment. There are severe penalties should the railway not be ready for opening in mid-1987.
The initial railway links the Isle of Dogs with the important regional centre of Stratford to the north and the eastern side of the City. Much of the route makes use of disused railway line and is re-using existing materials where possible. In the Isle of Dogs, much of the railway is on new viaduct, including new bridges across the West India docks. Progress has been rapid—75 per cent. of the contract work has already been completed and the project is both on time and to budget. Much of the civil engineering work is already complete, even on the northern leg to Stratford, which received parliamentary approval less than one year ago. Track laying is now progressing.
The City terminus, Tower Gateway, in Minories, is adjacent to the British Rail line to Fenchurch street station. It was not possible to link with the Underground at Tower Hill without the expense of tunnelling, and this could not be afforded within the £77 million project cost. A terminus within Fenchurch street station was not possible because the capacity was needed by British Rail and an alternative, a tunnel to Aldgate East, was prohibitively expensive. Proposals have been put forward to improve Tower Hill Underground station to handle the interchange traffic but London Regional Transport recognises the inadequacy of the interchange.
The trains are much faster than buses, they are smaller and faster than conventional rail vehicles and generally serve closely spaced stations. They are automatically driven but each will have a member of staff on board who will check tickets, assist passengers and be able to deal with emergencies. Although the stations are unstaffed they will have closed circuit television surveillance and facilities for passengers to contact and talk directly with the control centre. All stations will be fully accessible to disabled passengers with lifts for wheelchair access.
In the late summer of last year London Regional Transport was approached by the American consortium which is proposing a multi-million pound property development on Canary wharf in the Isle of Dogs. The consortium sees transport as a fundamental requirement for the success of the development and approached LRT with proposals for a westward extension of the docklands light railway to Bank. The view of LRT was that the City extension would be a major advantage to London's public transport infrastructure and would resolve the problem that had been highlighted by the late Martin Stevens of the far from ideal City terminus at Tower Gateway.
The Bank extension proposed by the Canary wharf development consortium leaves the initial railway just east of Tower Gateway and goes into tunnel before reaching the precincts of the Tower. The lines continue in deep level twin tunnels beneath Tower Hill, Byward street, Great Tower street, Eastcheap and King William street. Those tunnels would have a side walkway for emergency evacuation, maintaining the docklands light railway facility of full access for the disabled. Traffic on the extension is estimated at 9,500 passengers in the busiest hour when the development is complete.
A link with the City and the major development at Canary wharf would increase traffic from 6 million to 44


million journeys a year. Inevitably some aspects of the initial railway would need to be changed. Trains and platforms for example would be longer and some of the structures would need to be strengthened to accommodate the longer trains. There would be more trains and more frequent services. Other technical changes would be necessary to the track layout at Crossharbour and near Stratford, to accommodate the stepped-up services. A larger station at Canary wharf is also envisaged. The extension would substantially increase jobs on the light railway from about 100 to 200.
LRT sees the scheme as an opportunity to overcome the weakness of the initial docklands light railway City terminus, and to provide an excellent new addition to London's public transport infrastructure in partnership with the private sector.
The principal function of this Bill is to authorise the carrying out of railway works. The authority of Parliament provides protection for the builders of the railway against actions for nuisance. Since statutory authority is required for work, it is also convenient to obtain from Parliament any compulsory purchase powers required. This follows the usual practice.
I do not intend to describe the contents of the Bill clause by clause. However, there are certain features that the House may wish to be aware of. I also wish to mention some significant changes suggested by the promoters which they hope will meet many of the criticisms levelled against the Bill as originally drafted.
In part II details of the works are shown on the plans and sections, which were deposited with Parliament at the time of the deposit of the Bill.
The scheme in the Bill comprises a twin track railway branching off the railway authorised by the London Docklands Railway Acts 1984 and 1985. The extension leaves the initial railway immediately to the west of the bridge over Leman street descending deeply into cut and cover under Mansell street and then into bored tunnels in front of the Tower to pick up an alignment beneath the District line to the west of Tower Hill station. The line then continues westward on a downward gradient following the District line tunnels beneath Great Tower street and Eastcheap to King William street. The tunnels would have walkways which could be used to evacuate trains in the event of emergencies and the platforms are to be long enough ultimately to accommodate trains of three articulated units.
The line of the railway has been planned so that the tunnels are, for the most part, constructed at a depth below the streets so as to avoid any problem of interference with the existing building foundations and inhibition of future building developments.
The arrangements originally set out in the Bill for the terminus at Bank and for an interchange at Tower Hill have provoked a good deal of concern. In particular the City corporation has petitioned against the Bill on the grounds that the Bank station and associated proposals are unsatisfactory and unsuitable.
London Regional Transport acknowledges that the least satisfactory feature of the scheme currently before Parliament is the passenger movement within the station at Bank, which already handles 26 million passengers a year. The light railway extension would increase total traffic at Bank by a third. LRT and London Underground Ltd. were concerned about this and although the original scheme would have worked, LRT decided to re-examine

the options available, with the help of consulting engineers, Mott Hay and Anderson, which has considerable experience of tunnelling in this part of central London. It assisted in the Northern Line construction in the 1920s and work on the Waterloo and City line in the 1950s. As a result, a revised arrangement has been proposed for Bank station with the docklands light railway platforms in a different location.
The scheme envisaged in the Bill has docklands light railway platforms below the Mansion House, with the main entry and exit route to a new ticket hall near the top of the Waterloo and City line travolator, below Queen Victoria street. A deep level subway connection is provided to the Central and Northern lines, but passengers to and from the Circle and District lines would need to walk the full length of the Northern Line platform, which is a key concern, and along the existing escalator and subway link to Monument station. The Bill allows for a station at Tower Hill which would meet the needs of passengers interchanging with the District and Circle lines, but there would still be considerable movement along the Bank Northern line platforms. The proposed station at Tower Hill has itself attracted petitions against the Bill.
In the revised proposals the platforms are below the Northern line platforms under King William street. The overrun tunnel would be transferred from Cheapside to Princes street. There would be a new escalator exit to an extended Northern line ticket hall, a facility which would also be available to Northern line passengers. A separate escalator route at the southern end of the station would take interchange passengers to Monument avoiding the Northern line platforms and the present escalator link and would obviate the need for a station at Tower Hill.
The new scheme also has a new deep level subway from the docklands railway and the Northern line through to the Waterloo and City line, with a branch to the Central line. This new route would bypass the existing congested routes via the ticket halls, which are used by 30,000 passengers a day. As with the original scheme, there is provision for lift access to the surface for people with disabilities. The revised proposals would meet the requirements of a number of petitioners against the Bill in its present form.
Despite those major advantages, the revised scheme would cost no more than the earlier proposal. It is against that background that LRT will be asking Parliament for permission to amend the Bill by an additional provision to acquire the land needed. At the same time it will be possible to delete certain powers from the Bill, including the need for any access under the Mansion House. Discussions are taking place with the City corporation which has been supplied with drawings of the revised scheme.
Part III deals with lands powers. This empowers LRT to acquire land or take temporary possession of it. The Bill does not contain provision for compensation for land authorised to be acquired, as the Land Compensation Acts 1961 and 1973 apply automatically once Parliament authorises the compulsory acquisiton.
I should point out that clause 17 provides for LRT to take temporary possession of land in Trinity square, but this provision would not be necessary if the revised scheme is adopted.
I hope that it is clear from what I have said that the Bill would provide a means for London Regional Transport to carry out a valuable development of the public transport network of London. As promoters, London Regional


Transport has shown a willingness to amend the scheme when that was shown to be sensible and I am sure that it will do all that it can to ameliorate any remaining fears or problems facing the petitioners.
Much has been made in the press and elsewhere of the connection between the Bill and the Canary wharf development. However, we should not lose sight of the more general benefits of the extension. The improved connections that it would provide would greatly improve ease of access to and from a large part of docklands for the benefit of industrial and commercial regeneration throughout the area. I am sure that hon. Members whose constituencies are served by the railway are well aware of the potential benefits to their constituents in terms of quicker and more convenient travel. I believe that it is in everyone's interests for the Bill to be given a Second Reading so that the opportunity to secure these benefits is not jeopardised.

Mr. Peter Shore: I should make it clear at the start that I do not intend to vote against the Bill. I shall not do so for the good and simple reason that was touched upon in the last few words of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). The extension of the London docklands light railway from Tower Hill on the edge of my constituency to the new terminal at Bank would greatly improve travel facilities for many of my constituents, especially those in the whole docklands area south of Commercial road, who have long suffered from inadequate public transport.
However, in the interests of my constituency, and having regard to my wider duties as a Member, I feel bound to protest at the astonishingly scanty and contradictory information that we have been given about the proposed railway extension. The hon. Member for Ilford, South need not reproach himself when I say that he has not begun to answer most of the questions that are in the minds of my hon. Friends and myself. I think that the answers to our questions inevitably must be found in what Ministers have to say, and the confusion arises from a great deal of what they have already said.
On the face of it, the Bill is about extending the London docklands railway for a relatively short but important distance from Tower Hill to the Bank Underground station. That extension raises important questions of finance and engineering, the positioning of the Bank terminal to avoid congestion and rail management and control.
However, the Bill is about much more than that. It is about another and related proposal. It is about the massive development, as a major offshoot of the City of London, of Canary wharf on the Isle of Dogs. It is also about major changes in the capacity and design of the London docklands railway. I refer to the stretch between Tower Hill and the Isle of Dogs, which is now being built and is due to be completed next year. So close is the relationship between the proposed development of the offshoot of the City at Canary wharf and the Bill that it is true to say that for the Government and the financial interests that are backing them the two projects are mutually dependent. If there is no Canary wharf development, there will be no

City extension of the docklands light railway. Equally, if there is no City extension, there will be no Canary wharf development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had that put on the record clearly when he questioned the Secretary of State for Transport on 13 January. He asked:
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the westward extension will go ahead only if the Canary wharf project goes ahead first?
The Secretary of State replied:
Yes, sir."—[Official Report, 13 January 1986; Vol 89, c. 757.]
We are concerned with two problems. First, there is the railway extension, which is the immediate subject of the Bill. Secondly, there is the Canary wharf development, about which we have virtually no information other than that which has been provided by the public relations advisers on behalf of the financial sponsors of those projects. It is strange, indeed ludicrous, that the relevant information should be kept from the House and our constituents, but for that we must blame the Secretary of State for the Environment, to whom I wrote some months ago as soon as I heard of the Canary wharf development, for his refusal to hold a public inquiry.
The scale and importance of the development at Canary wharf is not in doubt. The proposal is to build up to 10 million sq ft of purpose-built office accommodation to house the latest information technology and to serve a massive banking and financial service complex at Canary wharf. According to the promoters, this will have an estimated work force of 49,000 in executive, clerical and associated jobs, and at least another 8,000 workers to provide off-site support services.
The promoters' claim has been backed by the preliminary findings of the independent Henley Centre, which claims that about 21,000 of the 57,000 jobs would go to local residents in the docklands boroughs. I believe that it is the largest office development ever proposed in the United Kingdom. But, incredibly, simply because Canary wharf lies within the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone, where industrial and commercial development is exempted from the national regime of town and country planning, the Secretary of State for the Environment feels able to refuse to hold a public inquiry.
What the impact will be of this vast additional work force, if the estimates turn out to be true, on the Isle of Dogs and on the borough of Tower Hamlets, what effects there will be on land use and land prices throughout the area, what additions of rail and road transport will be required to service this vastly increased working population, and what the environmental effects of making this massive additional transport provision will be on the residential community, we simply do not know.
I have urged the Secretary of State to call in the development, to appoint an inspector and to hold a public inquiry. In spite of his previous refusals, I repeat that call tonight. There is no reason why, with an energetic Secretary of State and a well-chosen inspector, such an inquiry should take more than six months to hold. If the Secretary of State had accepted my plea last October, the inquiry would by now be more than half way over and be concluded by the early summer—well ahead, I suspect, of the conclusion of the legislative processes affecting the Bill.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Or of their getting the money.

Mr. Shore: Indeed, that may be true, as my hon. Friend says. Without such an inquiry and the information that it would provide, we cannot make any real sense of the Bill. If the Secretary of State continues to refuse an inquiry, the instruction that I have tabled today, which calls upon
the committee to consider the economic social and environmental effects of the provisions of the Bill on persons living and/or working in the area served by the dockland light railway
will be a poor but next best thing, together, of course, with the committee proceedings on the Bill.
I shall turn direct to the proposed City extension. Can the Minister confirm that since the Bill was published a major change — of course he can confirm this — has already taken place? The hon. Member for Ilford, South has told us that London Regional Transport has agreed a new layout of the Bank terminus. The intention now is to bring it out at King William street, with direct connections with the Northern line, as opposed to what seemed to be the Waterloo and City line connection and a ticket hall below Queen Victoria street. This is a substantial change in a matter of four months, and I would like to know whether it has been fully researched, and whether it has met the objections laid by the City of London corporation. In any event, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South fairly reminded us, it will require what is called an additional provision to the Bill.
Can the Minister tell us about the control and financing of the proposed City extension line? We have had a series of statements, mainly in written answers to questions, from both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State. On 11 November 1985 the Under-Secretary said:
I understand that London Regional Transport is currently examining proposals for a privately financed extension of the Dockland light railway westwards to Bank." — [Official Report, 11 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 78.]
A fortnight or so later, on 27 November, the Secretary of State for Transport said:
An understanding has now been reached with it"—
the Canary wharf consortium—
that it will contribute £30 million towards the construction of the extension and, unless others can come forward, secure underwriting of an agreed privatisation scheme. My right hon. Friend"—
I assume that he is referring to the Secretary of State for the Environment—
and I have endorsed this understanding.
He added:
There will be opportunity for other people who are interested in owning and operating the extended railway to put forward alternatives to the consortium's proposal."—[Official Report, 27 November; Vol. 87, c. 565.]
The following day, 28 November, the Under-Secretary spelt out the Government's approach when he said:
The Government believe that any further investment in the docklands light railway should be privately funded, and that the railway should be owned and operated in the private sector." —[Official Report, 28 November 1986; Vol. 87, c. 674.]
As recently as 13 January the Secretary of State, replying to an oral question, said:
it is a very important breakthrough that the provision of public transport can now be contemplated in the private sector. "—[Official Report, 13 January 1986; Vol. 89, c. 757.]
The intention is clear. Such an extension should be privately financed, privately run and privately managed.
The idea of spatchcocking a privately owned railway into a publicly owned and run London Regional Transport

rail system is bizarre. It raises incredibly complex questions of integration with the surrounding public transport system, not to mention the major problems involved in financing its operating costs. Is this still the Government's intention? Is it the intention of the Canary wharf consortium? According to my information, the consortium neither wishes nor intends to turn itself into a railway operating company.
I am informed that the consortium has discussed making a financial contribution with the Secretary of State. That is why the Secretary of State referred to the contribution of £30 million in the statement of 27 November. Are we correct in believing that that contribution has been increased, by negotiation, to about £45 million? If that is so, what form will it take? What form will any other financial contribution take? Will it be a grant, a fixed interest loan, a share in the equity, or what?
What is the Secretary of State's current forecast for the total cost of the City extension? Is it still the estimated £70 million, the figure quoted last November when the Bill was first published? These are important questions. Unless the financial arrangements are satisfactorily concluded, and unless it is clearly understood that this extension line will be a publicly financed operation, there will be no certainty that, when the Bill is passed, the work will be successfully concluded or that the line can be kept solvent in the years ahead.
We are entitled to ask about the implications of the City extension line for the rest of the docklands light railway, the stretch that will run from Tower Hill to the island garden on the Isle of Dogs. The implications are both financial and physical.
With regard to finance, Ls it still the Government's intention — I quote once again from the Secretary of State for Transport's statement on 27 November 1985—
to offer … to any appropriate person who is prepared to construct the City extension
the management, ownership and control of the rest of the London docklands railway? We are entitled to a reply to that question. We need to know because, if I have understood correctly the Secretary of State's statement, the go-ahead for the City extension line is
subject to final agreement between LRT and the consortium on the detailed design and costs of the City extension, and on the particulars of the privatisation scheme, and to the completion of a master building agreement between the consortium and the LDDC on the Canary wharf development, as well as to the consent of Parliament to the Bill" —[Official Report, 27 November 1985; Vol. 87, c. 565.]
We have no information on the physical implications of the City extension for the London docklands railway, a large section of which is now under construction, except an explanatory note issued in February by London Regional Transport. I think that the hon. Member for Ilford, South drew on this document in his speech. The explanatory note states that the City extension link and the major development at Canary wharf will increase traffic from 6 million to 44 million journeys a year, with an hourly peak of about 9,500 passengers along the proposed City extension line. That is a massive, sevenfold increase in the carrying capacity required of the London docklands railway now under construction.
London Regional Transport's brief modestly states:
inevitably some aspects of the initial railway would need to be changed. Trains and platforms for example will be longer and some of the structures would need to be strengthened to accommodate the longer trains. There would be more trains and


more frequent services. Other technical changes would be necessary to the track layout at Crossharbour and North Stratford to accommodate the step up service. A larger station at Canary Wharf is envisaged.
According to my rough calculations, instead of two-coach trains, at least three coaches would be required and the frequency would increase by seven to roughly one train every one and a half minutes during the day.
The initial railway, now under construction, has been designed for far lower capacity and frequency. What are the expected costs of this vastly increased train service? What figure can the Secretary of State put upon it? What will these major modifications of platforms and rolling stock do to the estimated date when the new service will come into operation? Large stretches of the new service will run through residential areas in my constituency. What estimates have been made about the likely environmental effects? Most important, what is the likely increase in noise disturbance?
What are the implications of the proposed new developments for road traffic in the area? If Canary wharf generates about 57,000 new jobs on the Isle of Dogs, what proportion of the employees working there can be expected to come by car, as opposed to rail? I have seen estimates of the use of the rail link as high as 35 to 40 per cent., and as low as 20 to 25 per cent. On the first assumption, about 30,000 people will travel to Canary wharf by car, and on the second assumption it will not be far short of 40,000 people. This takes no account of the delivery vehicles and messenger services that would also be involved.
Has any estimate been made of the capacity of the road system between the City and the Isle of Dogs to cater for this vast increase in road traffic? Is the highway wide enough? What are the implications for the use of the so-called docklands northern relief road and for Cable street, which lies between? What are the likely environmental and noise effects of such a massive increase in road traffic? How will a horrendous bottleneck be avoided on the Isle of Dogs, and what parking facilities have been planned for this great mass of commuter cars?
I do not know the answers to those questions, nor, I suspect, does the Secretary of State. Sensible planning is not an optional extra, a luxury, a bureaucratic exercise. It is an essential requirement for making sure that we can avoid a monumental snarl-up of traffic, with attendant great and unnecessary disturbances to residential communities that lie on the route of the proposed road and rail routes.
I had hoped to be able to move the motion that I tabled:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to consider the economic, social and environmental effects of the provisions of the Bill on persons living and or working in the area served by the Docklands Light Railway.
That is not to be, as the Instruction has not been called. However, I hope that these matters will be considered as the Bill proceeds.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He asked a bewildering range of questions about the impact of the extension of the railway or the proposal to build offices in the east end of London.
I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to contribute to this debate like no other man because he was Secretary of State for the Environment for many years and has represented an east end constituency for many years in this House. If it had been possible to make these great calculations and to work them out with the precision that his questions implied, if there is a sort of planning environment and if there are answers, why did he never find them? What did the right hon. Gentleman do with that opportunity? There was no shortage of consultation, investigation or analysis. The whole environment of the east end of London was about inquiry, discussion, forecast and planning, but it was not about anything that mattered. Nothing happened. The right hon. Gentleman, who presided over the whole fortunes of the area and one of the most exciting reclamation schemes in the world, left a desert for this Government. That was the legacy that the Government inherited.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall not give way at this stage. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was equally guilty.
When the Government at last began to grapple with the problem of bringing hope and life to the east end of London, two people were conspicuous in seeking to frustrate the Government's endeavours. The Government decided that the time for dialogue, consultation and planning was over and that it was time for results, and the first step that we had to take to get results was to wrest the decision-making capability from the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party.

Mr. Spearing: I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the day when he and the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland visited my constituency and the whole of the Beckton area. The London Docklands Joint Committee, which was established by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) under the previous Conservative Government, had a Beckton district plan, under which the Thames water authority installed more than £20 million-worth of drainage works, and land reserved for public housing has now largely been taken over by private developers. When the right hon. Gentleman visited the area, were not those works in full swing?

Mr. Heseltine: I have no doubt that there were infrastructure works such as the hon. Gentleman described, but I remember the open spaces and the unforgivable dereliction which characterised the east end of London for most of the post-war period.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman's account is a travesty of what happened. He knows perfectly well that the docklands area was allowed to rot. Under the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), nothing happened. It was not until I came to the Department of the Environment and made the docklands area one of the six partnership areas, including Liverpool, that inner-city policy was given a whole new impetus and things got moving. The right hon. Gentleman merely took the credit for the foundations that we had built, and imposed on the area an alien and unwanted London Docklands Development Corporation.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's claim that it was a partnership area. It was a partnership of the various Labour-controlled east-end London boroughs, which suffocated the area and denied access to the private sector for more than a decade. The Government brought about a partnership—not a wholly private sector-inspired operation—between the east-end boroughs and the private sector. The consequences of that can be seen today from one end of the east end of London to the other, not just within the urban development corporation area, but in the peripheral areas that surround it. It is alive with building activity.
We started with homes. At that time Opposition Members said that people in the east end could not afford and did not want homes in that area. They were content to see those people go to the new towns in order to buy their homes, leaving behind increasingly under-provided areas of housing and inadequate public-sector housing. Today, in the east end of London, the private sector is leading the most exciting new home explosion in any inner city.

Mr. Mikardo: Homes that cost all of £250,000.

Mr. Heseltine: If I remember correctly, when I went to Beckton to open some of the first houses, they were priced at less than £30,000, and they were sold principally to the council tenants whom we were told did not want to buy them. Therefore, the Government alone unleashed the aspirations of the east enders which had been denied them during the post-war period. The credit for that goes to the Government, and to no one else.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall not give way. I do not wish to take up the time of the House for more than a few minutes.
The issue if simple. Having now begun this exciting reclamation in partnership with the public and private sectors, do we intend to back the commitment that we unleashed upon it, or to return to dialogue, consultation, planning, further figures and more investigations, which we had to get rid of when we took over the reponsibility? My view is 100 per cent. clear: we must make and fulfil every commitment we know how to that exciting regeneration of the east end.
If I were to make only one potentially adverse criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, it would be that I do not believe that there should be any long doctrinal discussions about whether the link must be financed by the public or private sector. It is unrealistic to think that railway connections must be financed privately, and there is hardly any precedent for it. The infrastructure for regenerating inner-city areas or opening up regional areas is usually provided in the public sector. If my right hon. Friend can do a good planning deal with those who wish to develop Canary wharf, I should be the first to praise him for it. To risk losing the development would be wholly unacceptable. There is a horse trade to be done, and I have complete faith in my right hon. Friend's ability to do just that. We must not allow the deal to be prejudiced.
I support the view, which is more closely related to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment than to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, that the Canary wharf project should

not be called in. One of the purposes of establishing enterprise zones was to give certainty and clarity to people who wanted to develop so that they would develop quickly within the environment of the urban development corporation, and jobs would come on stream quickly. Once again, the Labour party is returning to its original position of frustrating the dynamism that the enterprise zone has unleashed.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: My right hon. Friend, as a former Secretary of State for the Environment, was the begetter of the special development order implementation. Will he confirm that the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that all the real issues to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred, were solved before he issued the special development order, and that in any case the special development order would come before the House? Essentially, the only difference between that route and a public inquiry is that a public inquiry would take not six months but years, as the record and experience of major public inquiries show.

Mr. Heseltine: As my hon. Friend kindly reminds me, I have experience of the special development order. It can be a relatively speedy and thorough process, opening up wide discussion of the plans under consideration. It can be processed quickly through Parliament, if Parliament is prepared to allow that to happen. On one occasion I used that technique, and it led to a successful conclusion of the planning process, although, sadly, the building was never built. That is one of the ill fortunes of life.
What is on offer in the east end of London today may be the most exciting urban reclamation anywhere in the western world. It exists because the Government have created a partnership between the public and private sectors and funded the public sector, where necessary, and because the private sector has responded on a scale beyond the wildest dreams of those of us who believed in the project only a few years ago.
I hope that the Government will give all the support necessary to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and that the Bill will get a Second Reading. Any difficulties that need to be ironed out can be dealt with expeditiously in Committee, and this additional resource can be put behind the dramatic success already under way in the east end.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I shall not waste time or abuse the patience of the House by commenting on the distorted rewriting of history to which we have just listened, and which is highly characteristic of the one who did the rewriting.
The achievements of the London Docklands Development Corporation have been funded with money taken from local authorities. I do not know what the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) calls a partnership when, from 110 acres of housing land in Tower Hamlets, 102 acres were given to the docklands corporation, leaving the borough council with only eight acres. That is a bit of a one-sided partnership, is it not? If that money had been made available to the London Docklands Joint Committee, I am sure that all that has been done would have been done and would have been done in the greater interests of the area.
One thing, however, would have been different. Any action would have been carried out in the knowledge that there are tens of thousands of people living in the area. The great trouble with the docklands corporation and the proposed Canary wharf project is that the people in charge believe that they are building on a green field site. They ignore the fact that there are 15,000 people on the Isle of Dogs. When road transport is considered, those in charge of the two bodies I have just referred to simply try to find ways of coping with the 50,000 people who come on to the island every day. They think that they can solve that problem with the Canary wharf scheme.
Nobody seems to have noticed that half the working people go off the island to work. They must use the same narrow, winding and inadequate roads. There are also many secondary schoolchildren who leave the island to attend school. There is a good secondary school on the island, but some children leave the island to attend denominational schools. Those children must use the same narrow, winding, and, in one case, highly dangerous roads. Housewives also leave the island to shop. They go to Chrisp street market, Roman road market and Stratford market. They must use the bus facilities, which will be swamped by the people using the Canary wharf.
None of those considerations has been taken into account. The right hon. Member for Henley dismisses talking to people as contemptible consultation. He considers it to be dreadful, abject and most reprehensible to take the interests of people into account. That would be a reprehensible tendency of a Labour Government to consider people's welfare. The right hon. Gentleman would obviously believe that that could not be sufficiently condemned. All that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about is property and money.
Having passed over the right hon. Member for Henley, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for the careful and patient way in which he expounded the contents of the Bill. I have great sympathy for the hon. Gentleman. The poor chap has been pitchforked into the job of moving the Second Reading of a Bill which is concerned with a part of London with which he has no constituency connection and which therefore he does not know very There is no earthly reason why he should know it well. He has also been pitchforked into moving the Second Reading of a Bill which he, unlike some of us with constituency interests, comes to at very short notice.
Some of us have been involved in great detail in this Canary wharf lark for many months. I think that the hon. Member for Ilford, South performed well to enter this new world which he knows nothing about, making it sound as if he was on relatively safe ground.
As the hon. Member for Ilford, South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, the Bill is not simply concerned with the railway; it is also concerned with Canary wharf. They are, as my right hon. Friend quoted the Secretary of State for Transport as saying, "inseparably linked." I repeat what my right hon. Friend said: if there was no Canary wharf, there would be no City extension and we would not be having this debate about the Bill.
The House has a responsibility in this debate to consider the wider effects of the Bill and to take them into account. The House must consider the effects that the Bill will have

on the lives of the people who live on the Isle of Dogs —if the right hon. Member for Henley will forgive me for that impertinence—and of the people who do not live there. Many people already come from other parts of London to work on the Isle of Dogs.
The House must also consider the effects that the Bill will have on the operation of the rest of the light railway. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made that point. The affected parts of the light railway will be the section running from the eastward end of the City extension through the borough of Tower Hamlets and the northern part of the borough of Newham through to Stratford East station.
Like my right hon. Friend, I must make it clear that I am not, in principle, opposed to the railway, to the City extension or to the Canary wharf project. The railway and the City extension, as my right hon. Friend said, will provide a valuable transport facility. Of course, anything, absolutely anything within reason, that will create employment is warmly welcomed. The Opposition do not oppose these matters in principle.
Why, then, did we table a blocking motion to the Bill? My right hon. and hon. Friends and I did so for several reasons. The first was to precipitate the debate and to get, as my right hon. Friend has said, more information from the Government and the sponsors about what is to happen. We have not been given much information so far. The explanatory statement from the sponsors, part of which the hon. Member for Ilford, South read out this evening, is rather arid, thin, contentless and colourless. Our first object in precipitating the debate therefore, was, to learn more.
Our second purpose was to create time to consider all of the effects and implications of the project. A lot of thinking remains to be done. Many of the problems that arise from these developments have not yet been thought through.
Another purpose was to enable us to use the time made available to enable our constituents whose lives will be changed by the projects to have a say about the proposals and how they want to see the projects develop. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Henley will dismiss that with contempt, as he does not care about people.
It is important that we should provide time to allow the people whose daily lives will be changed to have a say. None of our lives will be affected, but some tens of thousands of people will be affected and it is important and an essential part of our democracy that they should have an opportunity to express their views.
The Bill, even in its narrowest interpretation, has aroused opposition from many people and organisations who believe that their interests may be prejudiced by it. That is why no fewer than 20 petitions against the legislation have been presented. They are a pretty formidable and rather interesting lot. They include Barclays bank, the Midland bank, the National Westminster bank and the Bankers Clearing House Ltd. In addition, there are 10 other companies, mostly either finance companies or property companies.
There are also some rather different petitioners, such as the corporation of the City of London, the Wardens and Commonality of the Mistery of Fishmongers of the City of London, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the trustees of the London Parochial Charities for the City Parochial Foundation, the right rev. and right hon. the Lord Bishop of London, the London Diocesan Fund, the


Rev. Prebendary Dr. Hugh Fearn, the Rev. E. Chad Varah, the Rev. Peter A. Delaney and, last but by no means least, the Master, Wardens and Assistants of the Guild, Fraternity or Brotherhood of the Most Glorious and Undivided Trinity. If I had that lot up against me, I would give in gracefully for fear of what might happen to me in the afterlife! The House will readily see from that list that the Bill's sponsors have brilliantly succeeded in doing what few people can do—uniting in opposition to them both God and Mammon.
One petitioner in particular, MEPC plc, a property company, is curious and intriguing. Its vice-chairman and managing director is Mr. Christopher Benson, who is also the chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation. His position with MEPC plc is one of his 18 company directorships, which. I suppose, might be why we do not see so much of him these days around the docklands.
It is curious that the LDDC is one of the three progenitors of the Bill, yet its chairman is petitioning against the Bill. I understand that that anomaly may soon be resolved. Mr. Benson may not be in charge of MEPC plc for much longer because, according to a report in one of the Sunday newspapers, the company will be taken over by Trafalgar House. Trafalgar House is run by Sir Nigel Broackes, who preceded Mr. Benson as chairman of the LDDC. Truly, the world of the big property tycoons is very small. The appointment of two chairmen of the corporation from that small world is one reason why, in all its operations, the corporation cares a great deal about property and money and does not care very much about people.
As the hon. Member for Ilford, South pointed out, in addition to that formidable list of petitioners, there may be some more objectors. As the hon. Gentleman explained, an amendment to the Bill is proposed. This has been made necessary by the revised plans for the Bank station. The Bill's sponsors need the consent of the House for an additional provision. To allow for the further objections to that additional provision, the sponsors will have to allow for more time. This will provide some breathing space to enable some sort of inquiry to be conducted. I do not necessarily think that it should be a statutory planning inquiry. I agree with the right hon. Member for Henley that that would take so long that it would be inappropriate.
I should like to give the House and, at the same time, the Bill's sponsors, the LDDC and the Canary wharf consortium a list of the matters which they will have to consider in detail before the Bill can complete its passage through the House and the other place. Those matters fall into two groups. The first concerns the light railway and the other concerns the Canary wharf scheme which the railway and the City extension are built to serve.
The first group presents some difficulties, for the reason that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney expounded with such exhaustive clarity. The problem is that we do not know for sure who will operate the railway. As I understood it, the Secretary of State intended first — my right hon. Friend quoted the references — to privatise the railway. He proposed to give away, for nothing, a railway worth £77 million of public money. That would have been a greater rip-off of the nation than selling British Telecom for half its true value.
The Secretary of State discovered, to his horror, that he could not privatise the railway because no one was willing

to take it off his hands within the straitjacket of the rigid limits he had imposed or, its capital expenditure. He therefore passed it back to London Regional Transport, where, as I understand it, it is for the moment and where some people—including, was glad to hear, the right hon. Member for Henley — want it left. There are persistent rumours and reports that the Secretary of State intends some sort of privatisation, if he can manage it, and that he is even prepared to put in a lot more taxpayers' money to enable him to give away this public asset.
That leaves us not knowing where we are. The sponsors of the Canary wharf project—the consortium and the LDDC— also do not know where they are. They are very unhappy about this indecisive waffling by the Secretary of State from one policy to another. I have a copy of a report presented by the chief executive of the LDDC to the meeting of his board on 21 February. I obtained it through a leak—it is not just the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry that have become leaking vessels. The chief executive told the board that the indecisiveness of the Department of Transport about the ownership and, consequently, the financing of the railway, including the City extension—that waffle by the Secretary of State—had been
exasperating for the Consortium and indeed for us"—
for the LDDC.
I look forward to the Minister's reply. Perhaps he will throw some light into this murkiness. If he can, all concerned—not only I bust the docklands consortium, the London Docklands Development Corporation and all those who live in the area—will be grateful to him. He should do his best to put at rest all the doubts and worries that have been created by the Secretary of State.
As I said, the problems fall into two groups, of which the first group concerns the railway, and there are five difficulties concerning that aspect. One is the cost of the first stage railway—or, as the sponsors call it, the first and second stages; there were two Bills, Nos. 1 and 2. As we have heard, the cost of that has been limited—come what may, said the Secretary of State—to £77 million and not a penny more.
That sum was originally for one two-coach train running every seven and half minutes. Under this measure, with a City extension, we shall have a much higher frequency — one every one and a half minutes or thereabouts—and the trains will be 50 per cent. longer. That will mean more rolling stock, but it must all come out of the £77 million. That additional rolling stock will mean a larger maintenance organisation, necessitating more maintenance equipment, and that will cost money. We shall also need bigger stations, and that will mean some of the existing stations being structurally altered.
Although I am not an expert, I understand that the main change as a result of the greatly increased frequency will be in the signalling and control system. The trains will be automatic; a member of staff will be on board, but they will not be driven by a driver. They will be controlled from a central point. That is why the signalling system is the key to the whole business.
A signalling system that will do for one train every seven and a half minutes—because, in layman's terms, it has a time gap in which to unwind and reclock on— will not do for a frequency six or more times greater. All that will involve a lot of money, and nobody has said where it will come from. Theoretically, it must still all come out of the £77 million.
I suspect that the Canary wharf consortium turned its nose up at the idea of taking it over, because it was being asked to buy a pig in a poke. The consortium knew all about the piglet, but it was suddenly told that it was no longer a piglet but a whacking great pig, and nobody would say how big it was. The poke was not to be any bigger, anyway, so that the consortium did not know whether it could get the pig into the poke. I suspect that that is why it gave the thumbs down to the Secretary of State when he tried to offload the railway on to it.
I come to the noise factor. It is true, as others have said, that the noise of automatic light railways—in some respects they are not much more than tramways—is much less than the noise of conventional trains. But three coaches going by every minute and a half, in many cases at the level of bedroom windows, is still a noise nuisance. There is a great difference in the noise level between a three-coach train every one and a half minutes and a two-coach train every seven and a half minutes.
I regret to say that people who have been dealing with the noise problem of the eastern part of the docklands light railway do not have much confidence in the willingness of the DLR to meet their valid objections about noise.
In the northern area, at the point where the railway, having gone northwards from the Isle of Dogs, turns east towards Stratford, there is a change of level and the railway moves up what is called the Bow incline. At that point there is a row of nice houses belonging to the Victoria Park housing association. The plans cut a little off the gardens of some of the houses there and place the railway virtually along the back walls of all of them.
I tried to help the people living in those houses, and the Victoria Park housing association, by convening meetings at the time of the No. 2 Bill, and we thought all was well. When the new Bill was presented I received a letter from the director of that association. In it he recalled how we met in July 1984—when the No. 2 Bill was in Committee—and went on:
I have been pressing DLR for further information about the likely noise levels and for improvements in noise reductions, so far without any success whatever. In particular, I have been asking for the following:

(1) Assurances that the noise specification will be achieved and enforced;
(2) Revised noise prediction calculations now that the details of the design have been finalised. It would be reassuring to know if the predictions were better than those presented at the hearing. Equally, if the predictions are worse, we are entitled to know;
(3) Assurances that maintenance standards will be adequate."

One would have thought that they would not be difficult assurances to give.

"(4) The noise barrier to be raised, preferably to two metres. It is quite clear that this would have significant benefits, but no reason has been given for not including it;
(5) A copy of the simulation tape that has been prepared; and
(6) Details of the noise reduction measures included in the final design."

He cannot get that information. It does not augur well judging how tender the light railway authorities will be with the huge volume that will be involved.
Some of the requests made by the Victoria Park housing association and the owners of the houses have the full support of the surveying team of the London borough of Tower Hamlets. That does not make a ha'penn'orth of difference. The docklands railway board, if it does not want to tell, does not. It is not right that residents should

not be able to get the information. Even worse, it means that there will be a great deal of scepticism about how far the railway will have managed to cope sensibly with the increased noise problems arising from longer trains and higher frequency.
My third point of concern is whether there will be, between the light railway, the rest of LRT and the London area of British Rail, harmonisation of the ticketing system, fares, travel cards and concessionary fares. If the railway is to remain with LRT, that will be relatively easy, although we would still want an assurance that it will be done. If it is to be privatised, then, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney pointed out, the harmonisation will be difficult.

Mr. Stephen Ross: This is an important point on which I back the hon. Member to the hilt. He must, make sure that this is written into the contract. Such a provision was not written into the contract when Sealink was privatised and now there is considerable trouble with concessionary fares, through booking and the rest.

Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his support. It is a pretty obvious point. There is nothing very clever or difficult about it and it should be attended to.
The fourth of my five points is that the people of the area should be provided with a proper system to handle passenger complaints. LRT has its arrangements, so if the railway stays with that body, there will be no difficulty, but if it is privatised, the people of the area will have no recourse, except through the expensive mechanism of the courts, against being badly treated, low safety standards or a failure to honour any undertakings. I should like to hear from the Minister about that as well.
The fifth and last point is about the extension of the railway into the southern part of Newham. If, as I hope, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure he will have a great deal to tell us about that. I apologise for having gone on for so long, but 20,000 of my constituents are affected by this proposal. I have been living with it since the beginning of last year, and I have been trying to learn something about it.
The second group of matters that concern my constituents derive from the Canary wharf scheme, where the rail extension is to be built. Everybody in the area—I not the least—warmly welcomes any possibility of creating jobs in an area of low employment. There have been a number of wide-ranging estimates on how many jobs will be created. I strongly suspect that all of them are exaggerated. The highest estimate is shown by the report produced and widely advertised, including in The House Magazine, by a consultancy firm called Henley. I do not know who is responsible for commissioning the report. The company kindly sent me a copy, but I received it only yesterday evening, perhaps because it did not want me to have the time to read it too carefully. Now that I have read it, I am discovering that the methodology behind its conclusions on job creation is not merely flawed and naive, but laughable.
If any of us were setting out to estimate the number of jobs that would be created in Canary wharf, we would do it by first discovering what firms were to be located there, secondly, what they would be doing there, thirdly the work load that would be generated when firms are there, and


fourthly, how many workers would be required to carry that work load. There is nothing clever about that—it is the way to go about estimating how many jobs are required.
However, this was not what Messrs. Henley did. Almost incredibly, in its lovely glossy booklet—I bet the cover is worth more than the content—the firm said that there will be so many million square feet of office space, and that each worker requires so many feet of working space. The company then divided the one into the other and, hey presto, calculated the number of workers who will be given jobs. QED. Can anyone conceive of anything more rubbishy than that as a methodology for a serious piece of economic analysis? Whoever paid for that report should be trying to get his money back, because he has been conned.
If anybody should think that all that I have said is just my personal view, I point out that the LDDC attaches no more credence to the report and its estimate than I do, because it has just commissioned another report from a major firm of accountants, on exactly the same terms of reference, so obviously it does not believe a word of what the Henley report says. It is a fairy tale, and it would be wrong to make any plans based on that so-called analysis.
None the less, however unsoundly based the estimates of new jobs are, however exaggerated they may be, if we can get only a quarter as many of the jobs that it suggests will be created, and if only a quarter of that quarter will be jobs for local people, that will be a godsend in an area in which unemployment is double the national avearage.
However, there still remain four causes for concern about the effects of those developments on the quality of life of the people who live on the island,. The first is the environmental blight of those three phallic symbols stuck up in the middle of the island, which will be pretty ugly. They will destroy the best view in London—the view across the river to those lovely buildings at Greenwich. I am not speaking of my say-so when I say this. It is noteworthy that the Royal Fine Art Commission, which gave a modified welcome to the Canary wharf design, is rapidly retreating from its position and beginning to question the design.
Secondly, there is the road congestion to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred. As hon. Members will know, the Isle of Dogs is shaped from north to south like a pear, with the stem at the top end and the bulbous bit at the bottom. A single road goes round the outside like a great "u". It is wider at the bottom than it is at the two prongs at the top. The western side enters from the roundabout in West India Dock road. The eastern side enters from Preston's road. The whole of the road is narrow. The western entrance to the island is narrow and winding and there is a swing bridge. It will be great, will it not, if the swing bridge is opened when 30,000 people are coming on to the island. There are already tailbacks from there to the mainland. There are considerable tailbacks at both entrances. One may imagine what it will he like with all this lot coming through.
The western side is even worse. The road is narrow, winding and dangerous, and it curves. There is a very high wall along one side of the road, which creates blind bends. They are terribly dangerous. Huge numbers of people— 30,000 a day—will be coming to the island on that road, in addition to the people who already come to the island. Some of them already have to wait quite a long

time on public transport before they can get there. With a contraflow of islanders going off to the mainland to work, housewives going off to the mainland to shop and children going off to the mainland to school, there will be absolute chaos.
Improvements can be made, but what is the time scale? No borough programme has been approved for road improvements. No projects have been approved which could be implemented in the near future. There is much talk of a new link with the island from the east of the A13. However, there will be great problems to overcome. It will not be possible to get away from a planning inquiry there because it is not in the enterprise zone—or a large part of it is not in the enterprise zone. That is years and years away.
The third of the four matters that cause concern is the displacement of existing business. I shall trouble the House with one more letter from a constituent. I should not do so if it were not germane to the matter under discussion. It is the most pungently practical letter that I have received from a constituent in all my years as a Member of Parliament. It comes from the managing director of a small company that is located in the London docklands development zone on the Isle of Dogs. I ask the House to listen to what this chap says. He writes:
A little over five years ago we moved into a primitive disused PLA warehouse, part of what had been grandly rechristened 'Quayside Industrial Estate'. The dilapidated state of the area was reflected in the low rents but we were promised future landscaping, car parks and all amenities. Regardless of subsequent increases in rent and rates, none of these things materialised.
This is the great London Docklands Development Corporation that the right hon. Member for Henley was lauding to the skies.
My constituent went on to say:
none of these things materialised and the environment has continued to decline rapidly. However, in spite of all the difficulties we have prospered and now give work to some 24 full and part time employees. On Wednesday 20 November 1985, the right hon. Nigel Lawson MP presented us with an award 'for contribution to the regeneration of Docklands.' Only a few days earlier we had received notice to quit from the London Dockland Development Corporation who wished to re-develop our site. They say they are prepared to compensate us to some degree for loss or expenditure incurred in the enforced move, but they are not prepared in any way to assist in our relocation. Unfortunately, now that the developers can see rich pickings on the horizon the prices and rents being asked for the new units are completely beyond the likes of our modest enterprise and we are effectively being booted out of the very area that we helped to resuscitate. We feel"—
this is a real cri de Coeur—
that we were pioneers, we belong here and have every right to remain part of Docklands future. The 20 or so people we employ are the real east enders, not middle class software analysts and finance brokers moving 'out east' from Weybridge and Gerrards Cross. We are in the last throes of our battle to remain in Docklands. Unless we find some help within the next few weeks, the LDDC will have won and the people of the Isle of Dogs will have sadly lost another 2,000 jobs.
That is the great London Docklands Development Corporation which the right hon. Member for Henley lauds.

Mr. Spearing: Will my hon. Friend note that the great LDDC has put compulsory purchase orders, in very similar circumstances, on a dozen or more units in my constituency, including land owned by the London borough of Newham? It is not just happening in Tower Hamlets and on the Isle of Dogs.

Mr. Mikardo: That is absolutely right. I should not be surprised if it were happening on the south side of the river as well. We shall possibly hear about that if the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) speaks this evening. Certainly it is happening all over this area. But what worries me is that what has happened up to now is only a tiny fraction of the amount of disclocation and removal of existing businesses that will take place as a result of the Canary wharf scheme. It will be 10, 20 or 30 times as great as it is now.
The strangest part of the story that I have just read out from this letter is that some time ago the London Docklands Development Corporation gave an undertaking that all businesses being thrown out of their premises would be not only compensated but resited. That undertaking was given to this chap who wrote to me and to everybody else, including the companies that have just been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South.
A local newspaper reported an undertaking that had been given by a spokesman for the corporation. According to the newspaper report, he said:
The businesses have our assurance that they will not be financially disadvantaged. They will receive full disturbance compensation.
He added:
All tenants are to be offered alternative accommodation in the docklands area and possibly within the Enterprise Zone.
That clear and unequivocal undertaking has been flagrantly and, I am sorry to say, characteristically dishonoured by the corporation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The problem is even worse for those of us who are in those parts of the docklands area that are not in an enterprise zone. We suffer not only from the relocation, for which we are also seeking undertakings if we are to support other schemes, but from the natural sucking of jobs into areas which are included in an enterprise zone. That is a double pressure which militates against those of us who represent constituencies to the south of the river. They have identical problems, identical high levels of unemployment and identical employment needs. We are willing to get on with dealing with those problems if we are given the chance and also the guarantees that I hope that the Minister can start to give us tonight.

Mr. Mikardo: I am absolutely sure that the hon. Gentleman is completely correct. The enterprise zone creates problems at its edges and by the drawing of its boundaries. The only people who are benefiting from the enterprise zone are the landlords, not the entrepreneurs. The concessions that are given to those who rent industrial premises on land within the enterprise zone make the land more valuable. There are large capital profits being made not by manufacturing companies, but only by property companies.
Finally I turn to the question of an inquiry. As I have said, one could understand genuine resistance to a formal planning inquiry. If my right hon. Friend is right in saying that it could be done in six months, we could do it even starting now because it will be all of six months before all the petitioners are dealt with, it will be all of six months before all the questions are answered and it will be all of six months before Credit Suisse First Boston will be able to raise the huge amount of money which is involved. As I understand it, that money is not turning up as quickly and

as easily as it had expected. I think that there would be time even for a statutory inquiry if we could be sure that it would take six months. I am bound to say, although I differ from him on other matters, that I think that the right hon. Member for Henley was right in casting doubt on whether a statutory inquiry could be that quick.
I cannot for the life of me see why the consortium, in co-operation with the development corporation, should not hire a hall on the Isle of Dogs for a week and appoint one person of a type who would carry public recognition— an authoritative person, a person who would be recognised as being impartial and fair—or perhaps a bench of three. They could sit there for a week and all those who have anything to say about how their lives will be affected or how their businesses will be affected or what their worries are about the Canary wharf scheme could come along and say it. Then, when those on the bench had listened for a week, they would write a report, and they could do it in two or three weeks, I am sure, and publish their findings—not statutory, not binding on anyone, not involving the Secretary of State, but it would be a big step forward. I think that it would do a great deal to get over some of the difficulties and frictions which exist and which I fear will intensify in the next few months.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the whole purpose of an enterprise zone was to avoid the delay of inquiries. One understands that. However, the Canary wharf scheme is quite different from anything that was envisaged as escaping public inquiry. This is sui generis: it is a one-off; there has never been anything like it. It will have effects on a large community. It will have effects not merely in the borough, but all the way from the City to the constituency of the hon. Member for Ilford, South and equally on the south side of the river. Many people are potentially disadvantaged.
Consultation by the development corporation up to now has been a sham. It consists of its making up its mind what it is going to do and sometimes telling people what it has made up its mind to do. That is not consultation. There was set up—I was very pleased about it, I wanted it, and I was delighted when it happened—a joint Canary wharf working party between the development corporation and the docklands forum, which is the umbrella organisation of all the community groups in the area, and what happened? The critical meeting of that joint working party had to be cancelled because the corporation did not produce the documents which it had firmly promised for that meeting as a basis for discussion at the meeting. It just treats everybody with absolute contempt in that way.
I end as I began, by thanking the hon. Member for Ilford, South for his introduction to the debate, but I must tell him and the sponsors of the Bill that between now and Report we shall monitor carefully how far the sponsors have gone towards meeting our constituents' reasonable requests before we decide what should be our final attitude to the further progress of the Bill.

Mr. Charles Morrison: As there are still several hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, I should start by assuring them that it is not my intention to speak for quite as long as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) spoke.
I should like to declare an interest as warden of the Ancient Mistery of Fishmongers, but neither that petitioner nor any of the other petitioners, so far as I know,


is petitioning against the Canary wharf development. All they are doing is petitioning against some aspect or consequence of the London Docklands Railway City extension.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar spoke with his usual charm and humour. Justifiably, he has expressed concern, explicitly and implicitly, about the welfare of people, but surely people will be best served by the new jobs, the new opportunities and the new facilities which will come with such an exciting development as Canary wharf. Even if the Henley Centre is a little wrong, I suspect that the benefit that the development will produce in jobs will he considerable. I have no doubt that many hon. Members would be thrilled to bits if they had this kind of development in their constituencies. I can tell the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) has been getting steadily greener in the course of the debate, as it has become clearer how many jobs are going to result from the development.
Hon. Members may with some justification wonder why the Member for Devizes is speaking in the debate. In truth, I am speaking in place of my Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). I should emphasise that I am not delegated by him to say anything that I shall say but, as his representative in the sense that at weekends he is my constituent and as therefore I am the person to exercise judgment as to what is in his best interests, and since, as a Minister, he is debarred from taking part in the debate, my objective to try to speak to some of the interests of many of those people and institutions which he represents. My hon. Friend attended the beginning of the debate, but he had to depart, to his regret and chagrin, on ministerial business.
In particular, I speak for the corporation of the City of London and some others of those who have petitioned against the Bill. That stated, I want at the outset to emphasise again, and to make it abundantly clear, that I am strongly in favour of the Canary wharf development. I am fully aware that in order to achieve the success that that development deserves, it is essential that it should have good connecting transport and railway connections. However, those railway connections cannot be constructed without full account being taken of the interests of others. Thus, it is not my intention—far from it—to oppose the Bill in principle.
Furthermore, I am fully aware that negotiations between the sponsors of the Bill and those concerned about certain aspects of it are continuing. Indeed, I had hoped that the negotiations would have been brought to a successful conclusion before the Bill came before the House. If that had happened, I would have withdrawn my name from the motion in the names of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar and others. But the Bill has come forward rather more quickly than I expected and the negotiations are not concluded.
My aim tonight is to ensure that doubts which have been expressed to me by the City corporation and others are given consideration. The revised terminus scheme at the Bank, first canvassed by London Regional Transport on 20 February, leaves unanswered a fundamental, if implicit, objection voiced in the City's petition against the original scheme that a Bank terminus approach of any kind would not serve the long-term interests of those using the City as their place of employment or those envisaged to he using the railway from the docklands area.
The City corporation's preference for a Cannon street/ Monument new station is directed to ensuring that those whose destinations lie west beyond the City do not further exacerbate the critical congestion above and below ground in the Bank area. Even though I am not a regular visitor to the City, I am well aware of that congestion.
If a future Blackfriars extension were allowed for, some of the through passenger traffic would not interchange in the City at all. Moreover, the unrealised part of the east-west vision of the 1970s Jubilee line would be preserved for the benefit of Londoners generally. Particularly preserved would be the future extension from Blackfriars to Charing Cross to meet the existing terminus of the Charing Cross/Stanmore/Jubilee line, being the section already constructed. However good the interchange arrangements claimed for the revised Bank terminus proposal, it is at an unacceptable penalty to those working in the City and to the proper east-west strategy of London Regional Transport for the future.
The danger is that the promoters are so absorbed —perhaps understandably — in achieving a business and commercial link between the Bank and the new financial centre at Canary wharf that they totally ignore the wider community interests of those who will live and work in docklands in travelling any further westwards than the City.
In addition to that major strategic criticism, I want to bring to the attention of the House the City's concern about the following main detailed considerations. There is a severe reservation about the closeness of the new tunnels at one metre underneath the existing Northern line tunnels and stations. The proposed pedestrian link from the Waterloo and City line to the Central line is too close to the foundations of the Mansion House. I am sure that the Canary wharf developers would be horrified if anything ever happened to the Mansion House. The new option at King William street proposes the complete stopping up of Lombard street and Bucklersbury, and that, not surprisingly, is completely unacceptable. That option would lead to increased congestion at Monument and along the south side of Cannon street. It does not tackle the problem of passenger flows from Cannon street to the Bank.
The corporation of the City of London's preferred option remains the one identified by its engineers at Cannon street. That would allow the traveller on the Docklands Light Railway to continue westward to interchange with the District and Circle lines and to join the southern region of British Rail at Cannon street or to take a travolator link to Bank station. It should be emphasised that from Cannon street to Bank would take no more than five minutes by travolator.
Comparing the latest London Regional Transport scheme with the City's option, the last report of the corporation engineers says:
Firstly, although both schemes are quite complex in engineering terms, there are far greater risks associated with the construction of the LRT scheme. The proximity of the proposed DLR step plate junction and the new southern escalator tunnels to the existing Northern Line running tunnelsa gives rise to serious concern about the continuous operation of services along the Northern Line during the construction of the DLR.
Secondly, the LRT scheme pre-empts any possibility of a further westward extension, whereas the Cannon Street Option is capable of extension. It is based on the design for a Jubilee Line station at Cannon street, and so the DLR could be extended along the route of the Jubilee Line if it has been preserved. This is of particular importance at a time when extensions to London's


overcrowded underground system are being sought. Following the introduction of travel cards and the simplified fare structure, there has been a considerable increase in public transport demand. Furthermore, should predictions for rapid increases in the City's employment transpire … a system that is capable of extension would be of great merit.

Mr. Mikardo: I am most grateful, as I am sure the whole House is, to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the up-to-date view of the City Corporation, which is a very important element. May I suggest that the Cannon street solution has one additional advantage, in that a roofed-over Cannon street would make an ideal site for a heliport?

Mr. Morrison: That is a very interesting suggestion, which will no doubt be taken into account by the corporation and by the promoters of the Bill.
Although the City corporation is pleased to note the willingness of London Regional Transport to consider alternatives to the original proposals, it is not happy about the latest London Regional Transport scheme. That is why it is continuing to petition against the Bill.
I turn to the concern of those petitioners who wish to obtain a more satisfactory basis for compensation. Some of those petitioners would be partly, or perhaps wholly, relieved of that concern if the City corporation's preferred scheme was adopted. Be that as it may, I should like to remind the House that the normal basis for compensation payable by an acquiring authority — for example, in cases such as the construction of an underground railway by London Regional Transport—is the same as for other compulsory purchasers of land or interests in land.
First, there is compensation for the land actually taken. In this case the land that would be taken is merely subsoil at a depth of about 100 ft. The value of that is almost nominal; it might be a few pounds per metre run of tunnel. In addition, however, where an owner retains land contiguous to the land taken, he is entitled to claim compensation for injurious affection if the land retained is reduced in value due to the acquisition and the works.
To establish a claim for injurious affection, one has to demonstrate that the market value of the land retained is reduced. That is difficult enough when there is clearly immediate damage and it is merely a matter of deciding how much the potential sale price is reduced. It becomes much more difficult when damage may or may not be felt at some indefinite date many years hence. For example, when a perfectly sound building is leased and produces a good income for a term expiring in perhaps 25 years' time, at that date it may or may not be found expedient to arrange for a redevelopment, the cost of which may or may not be increased due to possible complications arising as a result of the presence of a tunnel a long way below the surface of the land.
By the time that one has taken into account doubts about the amount, if any, of the extra costs of development and whether the development will take place and one has deferred the estimated extra cost for 25 years, the answer is that compensation for injurious affection will be very low. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to demonstrate by market evidence that a purchaser of the property today would pay any less for the building because of that possible future problem.
My basic point is that a developer should not be permitted to enhance his scheme by damaging other people's property without paying to the full for that

damage. The fair solution might be to require the developer to provide for compensation to be paid in future when the damage occurs and can be assessed properly. I have no doubt that this matter can be thrashed out in Committee, but it is of great importance to several petitioners. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the promoters to meet most of the arguments being put forward by the petitioners. I certainly hope so, as I believe that the Canary wharf development is of tremendous importance and holds out great hope for the future.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It might be helpful if I give the Government's view of the Bill.
When the Bill was deposited in November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement explaining the Government's views on matters as we then saw them. We had reached an understanding with the Canary wharf consortium that it would contribute £30 million to the construction of the extension and secure underwriting of an agreed privatisation scheme. The understanding was subject to final agreement between London Regional Transport and the consortium on the detailed design and costs of the City extension, and on particulars of the privatisation scheme. It was also contingent on the completion of a master building agreement on the Canary wharf development between the consortium and the London Docklands Development Corporation. The whole understanding was, of course, subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill.
In making our statement, we expected the design and costing exercises to be completed before tonight's debate. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that since then good progress has been made in refining the design, specification and estimated cost of the extension of the docklands light railway to the City. In the light of this work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has explained, amendments are to be sought to the Bill to improve the interchange arrangements with the existing Underground network. I am sure that this will be widely welcomed, and I hope that the amendments will be accepted. More generally, the Government are satisfied with the progress which has been made by LRT in developing a workable and soundly based design for the new extension.
In parallel with the work on the design of the railway, LRT and the Government have been discussing with the Canary wharf consortium detailed proposals for the privatisation of the whole railway, as envisaged in the November agreement. The consortium has recently told us that it no longer feels able to secure the underwriting of a privatisation of the railway. Instead, it has suggested going forward on the basis that the railway will be built and subsequently operated within the public sector, but with finance being provided by the consortium for its construction.
My right hon. Friend has told the consortium that, subject to acceptable terms being agreed, he is prepared to see the extension built and operated in the public sector. We have not ruled out the prospects of privatisation for all time, but the thorough consideration that this has been given in our detailed discussions with the consortium suggests that it is not a practical option at the present time.
Negotiations are in hand with the consortium to explore the mechanisms for financing the construction of the


railway extension, taking into account projections of profit and loss on the combined railway. The LDDC is also engaged in negotiations with the consortium on the wider aspects of the Canary wharf proposals. The Government will wish to take an overall view of progress on all fronts before agreements are finalised by LRT and the LDDC. Needless to say, the project will not go ahead unless the Government are wholly satisfied with the deal.
The proposed City extension to the docklands light railway would provide an additional impetus to development, not only at Canary wharf, but elsewhere in the docklands. It should also benefit local people by giving them improved connections to the Underground network.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister has just said that the Government will not go ahead until there is a successful conclusion to the deal. Therefore, will he confirm that further discussions need to take place between himself, the promoters and the Canary wharf consortium, and also, possibly, in respect of the master building agreement? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the principle of going back to the public sector has been agreed, but the financial details have yet to be agreed?

Mr. Mitchell: Broadly speaking, what the hon. Gentleman has said is correct. I shall spell it out a little more in a moment.
The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection, in principle, to the powers sought by LRT. A number of matters have been raised in correspondence with the promoters by the Department, and I would expect these to be cleared up satisfactorily. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is somewhat concerned about the impact of the proposed redevelopment of Tower Hill station and the effect of tunnelling and other works on the historically and archaeologically important areas immediately surrounding the Tower of London. Also, for a temporary period during construction, the movement and management of the many tourists in the area will be seriously disrupted. Therefore, although my right hon. Friend is not against the scheme in principle, he wishes to reserve his position on that aspect for the time being.
During our earlier discussions, the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) sought clarification of the current state of play and was worried about what he called "indecisiveness". That matter was also raised by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He drew attention to parliamentary questions which were answered last November and contrasted them with the current position. The fact is that, as negotiations proceed, the situation is one of constant change. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been very forthcoming. Perhaps in retrospect, if he had waited he might not have been faced with this particular charge today.
I am sure that no hon. Member would expect me or any other Minister to conduct any part of these negotiations on the Floor of the House. I can say that there has been no indecision. We are still in the process of negotiating the best deal for the Government and the public. That does not mean giving the consortium just what it wants. I have explained that the consortium felt unable to underwrite the privatisation of the whole railway. It is the consortium which has changed its mind. We have responded positively to the new situation.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar also mentioned noise. That is a matter for LRT, and no doubt it will

explain it to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the harmonisation of the light railway's and LRT's concessionary fares and pensioners' passes. I can give him the assurance that he sought. It will be frilly covered by LRT.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about a public complaints system. I can confirm that the LRPC will apply, as to other parts of the public network. I believe that Dr. Eric Midwinter and his colleagues on the LRPC will be happy with that.

Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful to the Minister for the precise answers that he has given to some of my questions. However, I am a little worried about the parts that he has not answered. I hope that I am not attaching undue significance to the omissions. I asked about fares and fare structures being harmonised with LRT.

Mr. Mitchell: Those are matters for LRT. I hope that I shall be able to conclude by leaving sufficient time for my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South to respond to issues which have been raised concerning LRT.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar asked about safety standards, which is really a matter for LRT. However, I can tell him that rail safety legislation will apply. He asked a number of questions about jobs, but this issue is somewhat outside the scope of the Bill.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney addressed themselves to traffic and environmental effects on the road system. The LDDC undertakes transport planning in its area in conjunction with the Department of Transport and the boroughs, and it is currently examining the highways implications of the Canary wharf proposals. This work will reveal whether it will be necessary to extend and rephase existing plans for road connections to Canary wharf, and whether substantial on-site parking provision, as planned by the developer, will be sufficient.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar warmly welcomed the prospects of job creation, but drew attention to many petitions, including a number from City institutions, both spiritual and temporal, and expressed anxiety about the effect on his own life in the hereafter. I am sure we all hope that he will remain here long enough to see many jobs created as a result of the initiatives that flow from the introduction of the enterprise zone by this Government.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the interlinking between the Canary wharf development and the western extension. As he rightly said: no development, no DLR extension. It is only the request from the consortium for the rail link that has caused the expenditure to arise in the first place. The hon. Gentleman complained that there was no planning inquiry. I cannot speak for Mr. Travelstead, but I feel that if there were riot an enterprise zone and the projects had to pass through the normal planning consent arrangements, it is highly likely that Mr. Travelstead and any other substantial developers would run to the other side of the world before even considering undertaking the development.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the consortium has made a series of presentations of the scheme to the docklands boroughs, local Members and community and environmental groups. In response to the views expressed at these meetings it has modified the scheme to move one of the towers further east to take it out of the line of Wren's Greenwich axis.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney talked about the cost of modifications to the existing DLR arrangement. It will be between £7 million and £10 million. The right hon. Gentleman asked who would pay. The answer is that that issue is part of the negotiations with the consortium. It is included in the estimated cost of £92 million. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the effect on the environment. That is a matter for LRT. He asked whether modifications could be carried out to the existing railway without delay to its opening, and I assure him that they could be. We still expect the opening to take place in July 1987.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) demonstrated the arid failure of the old methods of planning blueprints, Socialism and bureaucracy to create the jobs and the rebirths that are so necessary. In contrast to that is the bustling activity that has been brought about by the lifting of planning and other restraints in the enterprise zone. I am sorry that Opposition Members have learnt nothing and still hanker for the old methods which failed so miserably in the past. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley was right—the enterprise zone and the LDDC have unlocked the opportunity which Mr. Travelstead and his colleagues are now seizing. I am glad my right hon. Friend supports this significant United States investment in the docklands area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) recognised the difficulties of my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who, as a Minister, is unable to participate in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes raised a series of questions on behalf of the City, including the linkage into the LRT and BR network, structural matters between the docklands light railway and some of the existing tubes, the closeness to Mansion House foundations, the effect on Bucklersbury, and compensation matters. These are matters for consideration not by me but by LRT and the promoters of the Bill, but I have no doubt that they will be dealt with when the Bill proceeds, as I hope it will, to Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South demonstrated, in his introduction to the Bill, the benefits to the dockland areas and the preparedness of himself and his fellow promoters of the Bill, so far as practicable, to meet legitimate points made by petitioners.
There are 20 petitions against the Bill and they relate to property interests along the proposed route of the railway. The petitioners will have an opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a better position than we are tonight to examine the issues involved in detail. It will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence. I therefore recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee for its detailed consideration.

Mr. Peter Snape: The Bill before us deserves our wholehearted support. I have been guilty of repeatedly boring hon. Members over the years by my support for the railway industry and railway schemes, especially new ones.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on the detailed manner in which he introduced the

Bill. However, although his speech was detailed and outlined many of the Bill's provisions, we are bereft of some vital information. I attach no blame to him because vital financial information is lacking. To use the words of the Minister, "negotiations are still taking place" at the Department of Transport.
The problem with the Bill is not that negotiations are not being conducted "on the Floor of the House" to use the words of the Minister—none of us would expect that—but that negotiations appear to have been conducted in the habitual manner of this Secretary of State. That is by nod, wink and leaks from Marsham street. The odd off-the-record remark and semi off-the-record briefings to various journalists and others are regarded as a suitable way of charting the advance, or otherwise, of this project over the past few months.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) rightly described the Bill as scanty and contradictory. That point was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) in his drawn-out, but nevertheless extremely informative, contribution. My hon. Friend mentioned that the original estimate, approximately £77 million, was for a railway consisting of two-coach trains running every seven minutes. The more detailed project which is before the House tonight envisages a train every one and a half minutes. That, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, involves more rolling stock and a fairly complicated signalling and control system which would allow the trains to run automatically.
It is some years since I had anything to do with signalling control systems on British Rail mainline, but even more years have passed since the Secretary of State played trains on the nursery floor, which is presumably how he qualified for his present post. I hope that the Minister will agree that new signalling schemes are fairly expensive, and that if all the costs are to be contained within the original estimate of £77 million—

Mr. David Mitchell: No.

Mr. Snape: Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what the costs are likely to be.

Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was, not only in deep conversation when my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) introduced the Bill but was not listening when I replied to that precise point. I gave a figure of between £7 million and £10 million, and said that it was covered by the existing negotiations and would be in addition to the £77 million.

Mr. Snape: I apologise if I missed that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, he has still not answered the central question, which is where the money is coming from and how the scheme is to be financed.
A mixture of leak and innuendo has surrounded the scheme. First newspapers reported that rich Americans were descending on our shores, anxious to caste as much largesse as possible into docklands, to build and operate a railway system. I hope that I am not sceptical by nature, but I find the scenario envisaged by some of our more sensational newspapers rather surprising. I noticed at the time that the Secretary of State looked rather pleased with himself, so I thought that he may have got it wrong again but that, on the other hand, he may have got it right, and that that would happen. Then we heard that only £30


million of private capital would go towards the overall cost of the project. Again, the Marsham street rumour machine went into action, and we heard that the Secretary of State had threatened to cancel the whole project because not a penny of public money was to be used on it. He is not over-fond of railways at the best of times, and new ones in docklands are guaranteed not to appeal to him.
Then, in a Cabinet Committee—those things that do not meet because we never hear about them — the number of jobs involved was pointed out to the Secretary of State, and the ante was upped to £45 million for additional costs. I hope that I did not miss this part of the Minister's speech, but we still do not know who will own the railway, if it is ever built. There are some gaping holes in the project, as we see from the Bill. Will it be the Department of Transport, the London Docklands Development Corporation or London Regional Transport? We are entitled to know.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): My hon. Friend the Minister made that clear.

Mr. Snape: In that case, the Secretary of State can stand up and tell us. After all, this is his pet project, and none of us knows who will eventually own the project, including hon. Members with a direct constituency interest and involvement. If the information is available, we should like it now.

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said earlier, he would have discovered that LRT would own and register the project. I made that clear in my speech, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not with us.

Mr. Snape: That was not how I interpreted the Minister's remark. I heard that part of his speech, and he made it clear that LRT was responsible for operating the system, but only because our rich Americans, unlike some of the Conservative party's less enlightened Back Benchers, know full well that dollars, pounds and profits are not normally to be made from running a railway system. The benefits of running the docklands railway are not immediately quantifiable. They are similar to those with which we justify the nation's road building programme—that is, that time is saved, life is saved because of the lack of accidents, and better communications are achieved, giving a boost to the economy. One cannot stuff such profits in one's pocket and walk away with them.
As I have said, no one particularly wants to operate the railway as a private enterprise operation. That is why the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Minister of State must still satisfy us as to where the cash is coming from and in whom the ownership will eventually be invested if the project goes ahead. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was not in his place tonight, as he might have learned a salutary lesson that privatised railways do not appear in the whole of capitalist United States of America. Even there, they believe that the running and operation of the railway system is best left to professional railwaymen.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has brought from the Minister of State an astonishing set of facts. In his statement the Minister of State confirmed that the City extension and the dockland railway is to be run by London Regional Transport. The Minister of State said that it will

be a publicly owned and publicly financed part of the railway system. Throughout the whole of November 1985 and January of this year the Minister of State and the Secretary of State told the House and the people that they insisted upon a privatised railway scheme. We now want and are entitled to know whether the building of the City extension is dependent upon the consortium making a particular contribution to the total cost otherwise we are discussing a measure which may never see the light of day.

Mr. Snape: I think that my right hon. Friend has encapsulated the whole dilemma facing the Department of Transport. If the project goes ahead, a considerable amount of public money will be involved.
We all know that the Secretary of State is reluctant to use public money in such areas and the changes that we have seen over the past half an hour, since the Minister of State rose to speak, included an admission which was consistently denied throughout the later months of last year and has only just been revealed.
There is one other matter that I wish to raise.

Mr. David Mitchell: Did the hon. Gentleman also miss the point in my speech when I referred to the fact that it was the consortium that had changed its mind on how to proceed in the matter?

Mr. Snape: I am well aware that there have been some changes of mind in various areas in connection with this scheme. I will swap one change of mind by the Secretary of State for one change of mind by the consortium. We will be no more enlightened about the likelihood of the scheme if we do that, but at least some reality will have entered the corridors of the Department of Transport.

Mr. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Snape: Is the Minister of State seeking to proffer violence or does he simply want to intervene?

Mr. Mitchell: I ask the hon. Gentleman to read my speech as he did not hear me when I delivered it.

Mr. Snape: I always read the Minister of State's speeches with great interest as they are usually more factual than those of his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to a petition from the War Graves Commission. I understand from some communications that I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who takes a deep interest in these matters, that the War Graves Commission is petitioning against the Bill because it cannot get a satisfactory reply about the fate of Trinity Gardens where the terminus will be built. I further understand that the Tower Hill war memorial is on the site of Trinity Gardens. That is a war memorial to the 36,000 seamen who died in the two world wars.
The main point in the War Graves Commission's petition against the Bill is that it believes that it would not get satisfaction if London Regional Transport were to take over the development of the area. The House will be aware of a private Member's Bill which is going through the House and which has the support of both sides of the House. It proposes to make all military vessels war grave areas. Regrettably, it does not include the Merchant Navy. The National Union of Seamen and merchant seamen generally feel that, in the Government's eyes, merchant seamen are second-class people in death as well as in life.

Mr. David Mitchell: indicated dissent

Mr. Snape: That is certainly why the War Graves Commission has petitioned against the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill. The commission suffers from the same lack of information as hon. Members about the Government's intentions.
There is some justification for the Government's attitude. I understand it—once again, the Secretary of State has got it wrong. This happens frequently. Let us hope that, this time, he does not finish up in court as a result. Unless we receive proper information, I for one do not believe that the Bill will go ahead. As one who believes in railway extensions generally and in new railways in particular, I think that that would be eminently regrettable.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for having been given the opportunity to speak in the debate, because I have responsibility in my party for general planning matters and have a constituency interest as a docklands Member. I speak conscious of the interests of my colleagues who form the opposition on the Newham council and on the Tower Hamlets council and who are directly involved in and may, indeed, be running Tower Hamlets after May, when they will make their views more clearly known.
We welcome the announcement that the railway will operate in the public sector. The Minister of State must accept that that is a complete change of Government policy. Three options are available, none of which is ideal in its management. We welcome the fact that of the three groups—the Government, the LDDC and the LRT—the LRT will run the railway.
We still need answers to the questions that have been asked. If the debate has done one thing, it has revealed a certain amount of information. It has confirmed that what was always going to be a loss-making project, according to the Minister's analyses in the answers given in the House since November, will be financed generally, because it is a matter of general interest to London, and to east London in particular, that we should have this railway. It will not serve just the the people going to work at the Canary wharf scheme. As hon. Members representing constituencies north of the river have said, it has much wider employment implications. We welcome that. It will be helpful to know at an early stage the new arrangement between the consortium and the LRT, and the contribution that has been negotiated.
I am concerned to ensure that this scheme and others are properly integrated within London's transport systems. Various assurances are needed. We need to know whether, as the site development goes ahead, there will be substantial disruption.

Mr. Ridley: Why does the hon. Gentleman always refer to himself as "we"? Only the editor of The Times and the Queen are allowed to call themselves "we".

Mr. Hughes: I think it is safe to say that I normally manage to speak for a united group of colleagues. Indeed, our unity is manifested by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), whose views I think I reflect adequately.
We want an assurance that, as building takes place, there will not be massive disruption at the bridge crossings—especially Tower bridge, which is raised from time to

time—as this would clearly disrupt commerce in central London. We need to know whether that aspect has been taken into account.
We will need to know—

Mr. Ridley: "We"?

Mr. Hughes: The House will need to know, and the public interest requires that we know, exactly what is likely to be the view of the Government and the promoters in response to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morris). The hon. Gentleman appeared to be saying, unless we on this side of the House misunderstood him, that the City is not happy with the revised scheme as now proposed, that it does not find it acceptable and that, therefore, it has not reached agreement with the promoters on the right way forward. This is a second go at the scheme. Clearly there is not agreement, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will bear that in mind.
The matters of substantial concern are reflected in the Instructions that have been tabled. People living in my constituency and in other dockland areas north of the river appreciate that a development such as this can have massive benefits. We hope that that will be so, and that is why my hon. Friends and I will not oppose the measure on Second Reading.
At the same time as producing a properly integrated transport system in south-east London, it must be acknowledged that there are still bits of the jigsaw to be put in place—the Minister knows of my interest—and we look for links between this scheme north of the river and access to similar development sites south of the river, with proper integration between the two. I say that because at present, in the area south of the river, my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich and I have a white hole in our transport system, with no light railway, let alone extensions, proposed.
May we be reassured that land values will not escalate, pricing local firms and housing interests out of the market? We must feel certain that local firms and jobs will not continue to be relocated as part of a scheme which, though acceptable and advantageous as a development, could be a substantial threat to other interests. I hope that we shall receive those assurances, in part from the promoter tonight and, later, from interested parties. Without those assurances, my hon. Friends and I will not be satisfied.

Mr. Neil Thorne: By the leave of the House, I will—

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for other hon. Members to be called prior to what will be the second speech from the promoter of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), speaking for the promoters of the Bill, rose. It would at this point normally be his turn to speak, and I think that the House would now wish to hear him.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would think it wrong if my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), an objector to the Bill, a proposer of an instruction which was not called and an hon. Member with a great constituency interest were not allowed to speak in the debate. On those grounds I urge you—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not arise.

Mr. Mikardo: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it does.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Ilford, South, who began by asking for the leave of the House does not have the leave of the House, he cannot speak. Does he have the leave of the House?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. Spearing.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I assure the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) that I understand why he rose. About 10 years ago I was responsible for a private Bill on behalf of what was then London Transport. That Bill was concerned with buses. I appreciate his predicament, knowing what it is like to be the promoter of a measure of this type, and I hope that he appreciates my position.
This has been a remarkable debate. It has shown how the Standing Orders of the House in relation to private business do their work. We have had two surprises, both within the last hour. The first was in relation to the principle of public transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is usually accurate. On this occasion he got it slightly wrong, in that I am not opposed to the principle of the Bill. It could be a valuable addition to the infrastructure of rail transport in London, something which I have for long championed, and it is refreshing, after some vacillation, to see the Government Front Bench apparently agreeing with that.
Secondly, I have discovered that I am to some extent attracted to the Bill because it promises to provide more employment, increased opportunities and a degree of regeneration in east London, perhaps affecting the London borough of Newham. We have to ask ourselves what type of employment and whether it will be an advantage, on balance, to the whole of east London.
I have some doubts about the nature of the desire for increased employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar has already explained that, surprisingly enough, the LDDC is giving notice to quit to people on the margins of the enterprise zone, people who are providing a service to the City. The firm that he mentioned is thriving because it is there, handy for the City, but the LDDC is asking it to get out, despite the fact that 25 people are working there, no doubt on relatively modest incomes. The same thing is happening in my area, in the Silvertown viaduct, where the LDDC has sent letters to my constituents telling them that it wants to acquire the area by compulsory purchase, so they will have to get out.
We hear that the railway will increase employment for east London, and the LDDC has agreed it in principle, but I then look to what is happening in Silvertown, particularly the compulsory purchase orders on small firms. These are the very enterprises that the Government, day after day, say that we should have, the firms that are very much in favour with the Prime Minister, and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who went to give the firm in my hon. Friend's constituency a certificate. In principle — the words that encapsulate our feelings—we are in favour, but we want to know what the practice will be.
There are also problems with the line that is already being built. The London borough of Newham wants a station built at Pudding Mill lane, but the map issued by London Regional Transport says of this site:
Future stops when funding permits.

We want the stops there, and at Carpenter's road, to serve an area of employment. If the line already being built cannot have extra stations — it is only a fast track, however useful a form of transport—what real concern has the LDDC or the LRT for employment? Perhaps the trouble is the cash limit of £77 million. Perhaps some arrangements can be made, because the stations are not particularly big.
The second surprise on the turn round of private as against public enterprise are the City objections. When I looked at the LRT plan which came to us about three or four days ago and saw the revised layout for the Bank station, I thought it ingenious. I thought, "Right, they've got it." The original plan would have made the tube subways around Bank station congested, and was not on. However, this one looked all right and I assumed that it had been cleared with the corporation of London. Now we hear from the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), properly speaking on behalf of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) that that is not to the liking of that body. We are surprised by that opinion, although it has come late in the day.
Several points have worried us. The first is ownership. In the last hour there has been a change. Private ownership was insisted upon by the Secretary of State for Transport, logically in a way. Now, in face of the facts of life, he has had to change his view. However, I detected that the Minister was not happy about what he had to say—he will correct me if I am wrong—because he said that he does not rule out future privatisation if that is considered desirable by the Government. The Minister is having it both ways. He says, "We will get it built by private enterprise because the consortium wants it." That is despite what the Minister wants. If it makes money—I do not suggest that it will, but it might make money— the Minister says that it can be privatised. And if it makes a loss for the Consolidated Fund, it, like British Leyland, can be sold. If it were put into private hands after a number of years—if, heaven forbid, the Government continue for that long—it might be sold not to General Motors but to a consortium. There would be no guarantee then about the level of fares. Although our gravest doubts about ownership have been set at rest to some extent, question marks still remain.
When we entered the Chamber today we thought that this enterprise was going to be funded by Mr. Travelstead and his colleagues. However, we now find, although the Minister did not make it explicit despite his careful reading of his script, that it is to be funded partly by the consortium, presumably at the level of £30 million to which it was committed in the written answer of 27 November. We must therefore assume, because I do not think that the Minister spelt it out, that the Government will provide the balance, which will be in the region of £40 million to £50 million, including perhaps £10 million for London Regional Transport to carry out the agency work.
Is the Minister able to tell us whether that money will come out of the Consolidated Fund? Presumably it will, with the balance to be made up by the Department. However, discussions may be continuing on that matter.
The House has a right to know the answer to this question. This is taxpayers' money. All Conservative Members are anxious that taxpayers' money should be spent properly or not spent at all. They do not believe in public transport. The Secretary of State for Transport has shown his lack of faith in public transport by his previous


Bill, which is not an Act, that covers buses. We know where that has led him—straight to General Motors. We should like to know how much of the money for the construction of this line is to come from private sources and how much of it is to come from the Consolidated Fund. Is it to come out of the transport supplementary grant? Is it included in the public expenditure White Paper?
All of these questions have yet to be answered. It is unlikely that any Bill dealing with railways has come before the House in the past with so many unanswered questions and with so many big changes having been announced during the closing period of its Second Reading debate. It is possible that the promoters are not entirely in charge of the timetable and that events have caught up with them. For instance, what about the master building agreement? We have been told by the Secretary of State for Transport, who I am glad to see is on the Treasury Front Bench, that it depends upon the master building agreement for Canary wharf going ahead. The two go together. There is doubt now about how quickly the railways Bill will go through. If the master building agreement is not agreed by the end of March or by April, why go to all the expense of promoting a Bill which will involve a lengthy Committee hearing? The City corporation will back the petitioners to the hilt, will it not? We should be told whether or not the promoters intend to proceed to the next stage of the Bill if the master building agreement is unlikely to be dealt with.
I turn to the impact of the docklands light railway on the London Borough of Newham. We have heard that money is available for the western extension—

Mr. Neil Thorne: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 5.

Division No. 95]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter


Alton, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amess, David
Bright, Graham


Ancram, Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter


Ashby, David
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Bellingham, Henry
Cartwright, John


Bendall, Vivian
Cash, William


Best, Keith
Chapman, Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chope, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crouch, David





Currie, Mrs Edwina
Neubert, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Norris, Steven


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Ottaway, Richard


Dover, Den
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Dunn, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Durant, Tony
Portillo, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Proctor, K. Harvey


Fookes, Miss Janet
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Forth, Eric
Rathbone, Tim


Fox, Marcus
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Franks, Cecil
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Galley, Roy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gow, Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, Harry
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gregory, Conal
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Shersby, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hampson, Dr Keith
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hanley, Jeremy
Stern, Michael


Harris, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Henderson, Barry
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Hickmet, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Hirst, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Tracey, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Trippier, David


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Key, Robert
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Waddington, David


Knox, David
Wallace, James


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ward, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Watts, John


Lester, Jim
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wheeler, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Whitfield, John


McCrindle, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Wigley, Dafydd


Major, John
Wolfson, Mark


Malone, Gerald
Wood, Timothy


Mather, Carol
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Maude, Hon Francis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Merchant, Piers



Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Monro, Sir Hector
Mr. Gary Waller and


Moynihan, Hon C.
Mr. Rob Hayward.


Neale, Gerrard





NOES


Campbell-Savours, Dale



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Don Dixon and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Alf Dubs.


Weetch, Ken

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Local Government

Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government Re-organisation (Compensation) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 151), dated 31st January 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th February, be annulled.
The regulations are concerned with compensation for the loss of employment and for diminution of emoluments for members of staff of the Greater London council and the six metropolitan counties. An early release scheme, supposedly designed to create vacancies in other authorities to make way for metropolitan county staff, completes the package of measures put forward by the Government for dealing with the staffing consequences of abolition. However, there are several problems about the package.
It is no consolation to say that it could have been worse. The initial proposals of the Government were very unsatisfactory. It was only following pressure from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Trades Union Congress local government committee that improvements were made. The package of measures has done little to assist the management of change, it has produced inequity and disparity of treatment in different metropolitan county council areas, and it is too late. The early release scheme, which might have helped by reducing the number of compulsory redundancies, has only been made operative through a circular dated 26 February 1986, just five weeks before abolition.
About a week ago I talked at some length in the Chamber about the problems created by only five weeks' notice of the regulations being given. This evening I shall let Sir Philip Woodfield, chairman of the staff commission, speak on my behalf. In the Municipal Journal of 28 February 1986 he wrote:
The uncertainty has been added to by Government delays. Only recently has it laid before Parliament the main transfer order and the compensation regulations and promulgated the early release scheme. It is not sufficient to say that the main outlines of the proposals were announced some time ago. The delay in putting out detailed arrangements for the early release scheme in particular has much reduced its value and anyway people ought not to be expected to make crucial decisions affecting the rest of their lives without seeing exactly how they would be affected.
I should like to consider the circumstances of those who leave the employment of a metropolitan county council to take a lower-paid job in another local authority. That move is itself a blow, but it could become a permanent feature for many. The Government's initial proposals were for a lump sum payment which would have led to greater unfairness for some people. The scheme in the present regulation, although better, has some drawbacks, which the Government could remedy even at this late stage.
An employee will get up to £5,000 a year. The cash for compensation is calculated according to a formula in the regulations, which is arrived at, roughly, by subtracting the contractual wages paid in the new job from the contractual wages, overtime payments and bonus payments paid in the original job.
Payments are to be made one year in arrears, so the first is not due until 1 April 1987 for many staff. However, it is possible for residuary bodies to make certain interim

payments. I hope that other residuary bodies will follow the example of one in the west midlands that has determined to make monthly payments. That will help to reduce the hardship experienced by loyal officers of local authorities who will suffer from a much reduced income.
The compensation lasts for seven years, but half payment is made in the eighth year. The Government might like to extend the period of time during which compensation is payable. There are important conditions for eligibility spelt out in regulation 3(7)(2)(a) to (e). Regulation 3(7)(2)(b) states that "an employee must have had three years continuous local government service by 1 April 1986 to qualify for compensation. I have been approached by several representatives of the metropolitan counties who suggest that the requirement should be for no more than two years. I should be glad if the Minister would consider that carefully. Such a reduction would bring eligibility into line with eligibility for payment for compulsory redundancy. The choice of three years is quite arbitrary.
Redundancy payments are a less straightforward matter. There is a problem, because there are two schemes for calculating redundancy payments — a national scheme and locally agreed schemes. Three metropolitan county councils—South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear and West Midlands—have been prevented from implementing local schemes by the undoubted sharp practice of the previous Secretary of State. I refer to the use of retrospective legislation in March 1984 to prevent them from establishing their own severance schemes. On 1 March 1984, the then Secretary of State said in a written reply:
The second will ensure that any terms which are incorporated into existing or future contracts of employment after 1 March 1984 and which relate to compensation for redundancy or detriment will have no effect where they would entitle an employee to an amount greater than that provided for, in due course, in the main abolition legislation." — [Official Report, 1 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 276–277.]
It will be noted that the date I mentioned in the former Secretary of State's reply is 1 March. He actually gave the written answer in the Official Report on 1 March 1984. I find that an unacceptable practice.
As the Minister is aware, my constituency is part of the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear. I shall use Tyne and Wear as a illustration of the iniquitous situation that has arisen as a consequence of the decision of the former Secretary of State. Officers will claim that it is the first time in the history of industrial relations, both inside and outside the public sector, that two different sets of conditions have applied to people being made redundant in the same industry. It is not good enough. It is unfair and unjust. Many of the staff concerned—in fact I would say all of the staff—have given many years of loyal service to the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county and they feel that the Government are using them as political pawns. Even if the abolition of the metropolitan county was a political battle between Members of Parliament at Westminster and councillors on local authorities that is no excuse for the fact that the officers, who were not a part of that political process, will be the ones who will suffer. I find that totally unacceptable. Staff are dismayed at the treatment after serving for many years to the best of their ability.
It is not the wish of the local authority that this problem has arisen. Well before 1 March 1984 my local authority is on record giving a public commitment to a local scheme


that provided a safety net, vital in the north east, an area of extremely high unemployment. It is part of the northern region, as you know well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which has the highest unemployment level in Britain.
Those people who are aged over 50 will find it particularly difficult to find another job if they are made redundant when the abolition day is reached. It has been suggested in a most disgraceful front page of the Daily Express that the schemes are "gravy trains". I cannot understand the Daily Express. I knew that it was a backward newspaper but for it to print a front page lead now about a scheme that was announced on 1 March 1984 is taking things too far. The article, by Mr. Don Coolican talks about a "gravy train". I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have worked in local Government, as I did for many years. We know that some of the directors—I was an assistant director of social services —could be considered to be well paid, but many of the clerical staff, typists and other people who work for local authorities are far from well paid. To describe what some people in a local authority will obtain as a redundancy payment as a "gravy train" is downright misrepresentation of the true facts and it is a disgrace. It is an insult to the workers, who will already suffer badly by being made unemployed, without having such scandalous and scurrilous material written about them.
The people who face this uncertain future would have been quite happy to have given more years of their lives to serve the people of Tyne and Wear diligently. Tyne and Wear has been used to illustrate the problem but it also affects the staff of two other metropolitan counties, South Yorkshire and the West Midlands. I received a letter from three members of staff of the South Yorkshire county council, with a detailed argument supporting the case for better redundancy pay. They wrote:
It seems totally wrong that officers employed by South Yorkshire, and by Tyne and Wear and West Midlands and made redundant by abolition should be treated differently from colleagues in the GLC, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire on the basis of virtual accidents"—
I think that that is a good phrase—
of timing; accidents relating to the timing of approval of severance schemes in relation to government deadlines.
It may be argued that the GLC, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire simply eluded the government's efforts and behaved irresponsibly in adopting over-generous severance schemes. This is just not true; it is the scheme proposed to be imposed on South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear and the West Midlands which is the exception. The scheme is the worst ever applied in the public sector. It compares badly with schemes operated by other public bodies such as the NCB, British Gas and Water Authorities. It is understood that it also compares badly with private schemes such as those operated by ICI, GEC, Courtaulds and Marks and Spencer.
Certain rights were acquired by the GLC and the metropolitan counties — Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and Merseyside — and in general their contractual schemes give employees a higher level of compensation entitlement than the scheme that is set out in the regulations. Under the present arrangements, and excluding superannuation benefits, a person aged 58 with 34 years' service earning £15,000 a year would receive the following amounts if he worked for the following authorities: Greater Manchester, £20,193; West Yorkshire, £17,163; south Yorkshire, only £8,221. By luck, or by choosing a certain geographical area in which to live and work, an individual may receive almost

£21,000 while someone living in another area such as south Yorkshire would receive only £8,000. That cannot be right and it is not right.
After representations to the Government by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Trades Union Congress, the scheme was improved for staff within the 40–50-year age group. However, there are other disparities that are worth mentioning. For example, a local authority worker is treated differently from a civil servant. The following example shows how payment will be calculated for a local authority worker as against a non-mobile civil servant. I do not criticise those who receive more than others. My contention is that metropolitan county staff should receive the same as civil servants.
On abolition, a member of staff of a metropolitan council aged 40 years with 20 years' service will receive 40 weeks' pay. A non-mobile civil servant would receive 65 weeks' pay. A member of staff of a metropolitan county aged 50 years with 30 year' service would be given 82 weeks' pay and the non-mobile civil servant would receive 104 weeks' pay. These are examples — I could give many more — that we would like the Minister to consider.
It is disgraceful that only five weeks remain in which to consider these matters. I hope that the Minister will bring the arrangements for the staff of the metropolitan counties into line with those for civil servants.
The Government's main objective was to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties. I cannot be sure, but I hope that it was not part of their policy to create two different tiers of redundancy payments and to pay some staff more or less than others. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the following questions. First, will the hon. Gentleman allow a scheme to operate which was agreed in detail after 1 March 1984, which is now available and which was declared publicly before 1 March 1984? In other words, it can be demonstrated unequivocally that there is no sharp practice.
Secondly, if the Minister cannot agree to that, will he consider closing the gap between the payments that are made under the two schemes for those aged over 50 years who will experience the greatest difficulty in the job market? We would like to see a closing of the gap between the better paid local schemes and non-local schemes. I stress that by closing the gap I mean bringing upwards the scheme we are discussing and certainly not bringing it down from any of the schemes that have been agreed locally. I ask the Minister seriously to consider closing the gap.
Thirdly, will the Minister take a generous attitude to the problem? The numbers involved will be relatively small When we spent 200 hours on the Bill, the Government talked of possibly 8,000 or 9,000 people being made redundant. We know that, although too many will be made redundant, the numbers will not be of that magnitude. In view of this the Minister has a chance to take a genereous attitude to the problem.
Fourthly, will the Minister agree to look specifically at the compensation that will be obtained by those people, many under 60, who have contributed for over 40 years to a superannuation fund? I understand from a letter from the chief executive of the West Midlands county council, Mr. Hender, that
such officers should be compensated by having redundancy compensation payments on the same scale as that provided under Clause 4(1); that is, two weeks' pay for each year of service.


Fifthly, will the Minister confirm that, as regards reorganisation under the Local Government Act 1985, section 84(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 applies to persons who are affected by local public holiday arrangements? I can see that there could be difficulty here where public holidays, associated extra-statutory holidays and concessionary holidays, interrupt continuity of service. Mr. Hender says, giving an example:
we have situations where people have left say, Walsall corporation on a Maundy Thursday and have commenced work with the West Midlands County on Wednesday after Easter, the first day of their new contract of employment.
Before anyone thinks that that does not sound serious, let me say that normally I am dealing with a different industry, with a miner with 40 years' service, who receives only 10 years' redundancy pay after 40 years down a lousy, stinking, dirty mine, all because there was a few days' gap between the final part of his employment for the last 10 years and the main part of his employment.
The legislation ensures that staff on maternity leave at 31 March who are not transferred to a successor authority will be entitled to receive from the appropriate Residuary Body any outstanding statutory maternity pay even though their employers cease to exist. However, women employees of the GLC and metropolitan counties also have contractual rights to maternity pay in excess of the statutory provisions, which under present regulations they will lose. We believe that it is completely unfair that the staff concerned should lose such contractual entitlements, which could easily be met by the Residuary Bodies. Women on maternity leave will be unable to make themselves available for other employment or to compete effectively for other jobs, because of their pregnancy or their recent confinement. They will be in a disadvantaged position compared with their colleagues. A continuing entitlement to contractual maternity pay will at least help to provide some compensation. I hope the Minister will take this on board.
Another problem that could well arise is when some people have worked for local government up to 1 April 1974 and then were compulsorily transferred on that date to employment with a water authority or health authority. Then, on various dates since April 1974 they have voluntarily left their water authority or health authority employers and rejoined local government, without any break in service. In effect they could be considered as returning to their natural local government service. However, it would be considered that there had been a break in service for the purpose of redundancy payments under the present scheme. Will the Minister consider a move from local government to a health or water authority not as a break in service but as continuous service for redundancy pay purposes?
Finally, there are implications for the Inner London education authority. There has been no indication so far that the powers of section 31 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1921 will be applied to any of the new bodies set up under the Local Goverment Act 1985. If those powers are not applied to the new ILEA, the provisions referred to in paragraph 5(a) of a letter which I have received from the GLC—
to provide better compensation terms generally than those available to redundant local government employees elsewhere in the country mainly in the area of lump sum redundancy payments and particularly for those under the age of 50 years"—

—will be applicable only to those employees who are transferred to the new ILEA under a statutory transfer order, and will not be applicable to many employees recruited by the new authority after 31 March 1986. The protection will be secured under the Act because the terms are contractual.
Moreover, the powers will not be available for use in the way described in paragraph 5(b) and (c) of the GLC's letter, that is:
to provide better compensation terms for specified groups of employees in special circumstances (eg for certain professional staff under 50 years at the time of the 'Cutler cuts' exercise in 1978)",
and
to enable improved early retirement terms to be offered in individual cases, (particularly senior officers) where there has been political pressure for the individual's services to be terminated.
Therefore, it is vital that the powers in respect of those employees are applied to the new ILEA.
The Government face a test tonight. Can they give the reward that loyal, hard-working, conscientious staff of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC deserve? Abolition day is coming far too quickly, but the Government still have time to reconsider the proposals, and to consider all the disparities that have been created by the announcement of the former Secretary of State on 1 March 1984. Will the Minister consider my questions and arguments carefully so that on the dreadful date all members of staff will be properly compensated for the many dedicated years of service that they have given to the metropolitan county councils?

Mr. John Whitfield: I have listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) about the regulations. I do not purport to understand them as closely as he obviously does. However, I know that they are extremely beneficial to the employees of the bodies to which they relate. We as caring Conservatives would not have it any other way, provided those many benefits accrue to those who are genuinely made redundant as a result of the abolition of the county councils and the GLC.
I understand the expression "to be made redundant" to be without work for a period. However, from my experience in west and south Yorkshire, where many of my constituents work and live, many of the employees of the authorities are having their cake and eating it. The gravy train, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which appalled us all in 1984, has indeed come out of the sidings once again and is up and running in 1986. A considerable number of officers and others who work for these authorities have three choices before them. First, they can calculate what benefits and other payments would be due to them under the regulations, such as those we are considering tonight.
Many people have spoken to me at my surgery complaining that the regulations were not available early enough. In that point, at least, I would agree with the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington. The second choice that these people have is whether to join the district's successor authority or the joint boards to which the functions which they have been administering have been transferred. Their third choice is to consider what other jobs are available in the private or other sectors as an alternative to local government service.
What a marvellous choice that is. It is a "no lose" situation. It is certainly a choice which the many unemployed people in my constituency who have not had the benefit of working in local government would give their right arms to have.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington referred at length to the situation—which he thinks is a poor one—involving the officers of the South Yorkshire county council. I draw to the attention of the House a particular case, that of the chief executive of the South Yorkshire county council, Mr. Harris.
I make it clear that none of the remarks that I wish to make tonight are in criticism of Mr. Harris. He was an excellent chief executive of that authority and a much sought-after individual for his skills in administration. However, in October 1985, because of his undoubted skills, he was head-hunted and offered a job running a very successful barrister's chambers in London. The job was so attractive—it must be like my job here—that he was prepared to take it and commute weekly from west Yorkshire, where he lives, to London.
One would have thought that his employers, the county council, and those involved would have commented on Mr. Harris's stroke of luck and wished him all the best in his new career. However, there was a certain possible redundancy payment and certain pension implications of Mr. Harris's situation, which meant that it was important that he remained in local government for some further months until, I believe, April 1986. Mr. Harris has a job one day a week with the residuary body which will deal with the winding up of the council and for that I am told he is paid at the rate of £10,000 per annum. He works for the residuary body on one day a week and for the rest of the week he is in London conducting the affairs of a successful set of chambers.
The Minister should be aware that it is this type of thing —I would not like to use the word exploitation, rather it is the opportunity available to the poor, long-suffering hard-working, underpaid officers of the local authorities which are being abolished under the Local Government Act 1985 — which is bringing this legislation into disrepute. The Government were unfortunately very much party to the implementation of the reorganisation of local government in 1974 and we received a lot of just criticism from what flowed from that.
We are now engaged in a similar, though very much better, operation which will bring the administration of local government that much nearer to the people and I am in favour and support this measure. However, we are attaching to this radical legislation benefit packages which are far too beneficial for certain individuals and which are bringing the whole legislation into disrepute.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an important point, but some clarification is needed. I know nothing about the individual in question. The hon. Gentleman appeares to be saying that that individual is being retained by the residuary body at a salary of £10,000 a year for an unknown period. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the residuary body has nothing to do with local government because it is the body appointed to wind up. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not drawing from the facts which he has put to the House the conclusion that local government schemes — past,

present and future—are to blame. The residuary body is simply a body brought in by the Government which has total discretion as to who to employ and which appears to be the subject of the hon. Gentleman's criticism. That criticism appears therefore to be wrongly directed at local government and its excesses.

Mr. Whitfield: The regulations apply to people who have been employed by the metropolitan county councils, by the new authority or by the residuary bodies.
Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State assure the House that he and the officials in his Department will give detailed scrutiny to this type of case? Will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to ensure that the people who benefit under the regulations — there are many—will receive only their absolute entitlement? If measures are used in this way, the implementation of the Local Government Act 1985 is brought into disrepute.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that comes within the context of the regulations. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give me some assurance. It undermines some of the intentions of the regulations which may be generous but which need to be tidied up. Many people will be scrurrying around furiously in the next few weeks trying to work out where their future lies when the authorities for which they work are abolished.
The problem relates specifically to a discrepancy and inconsistency and, therefore, to inequality between the two sorts of people who will be working in similar jobs and similar relationships after 1 April to the ones in which they are now working yet whose terms and conditions of service will not remain the same as they are now. They are affected in the context of ILEA.
The old education authority is coming to an end and the new one is starting. The new authority is taking on people in two ways. It is taking on people who are designated for transfer who, to all intents and purposes, will continue in the service of one authority with, therefore, unbroken terms and conditions of service. It is also recruiting people who will start a new period of employment. Inevitably, many of these people are, as of today, ILEA employees.
ILEA has been technically a committee of the Greater London council, which will be abolished at the end of March. Many of the functions carried out by ILEA staff are, in other departments, carried out by staff paid for and managed by the GLC but effectively seconded on an agency basis to work for ILEA, as has been done for weeks, months or years.
There were endless debates in Committee on the Local Government Bill in which various examples of departments were given. Among the common service departments, the engineers' department has many people within it who are employed by the GLC but are working permanently for ILEA on specific projects with people from other departments who perhaps are ILEA employees.
The Minister will be aware of the problem that I raise because there has been correspondence about it between county hall and the various departments. Taking engineers as an example, those who at the end of this month cannot be designated—because they are not working for ILEA now—will have to apply to and be appointed by the new ILEA. Although they may then have the same salaries


and terms and conditions of employment as they have now, should they be made redundant in two or three years' time, they will not have the same benefits as those who have already been designated and transferred across to the new ILEA or who have worked for the authority all the time.
It is interesting to consider those working in the architects' department. I understand that the staff in that section were en bloc attributed to ILEA, so they will have continuing terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly, should they face a service variation, in particular redundancy, they will not be prejudiced. In other words, from 1 April there will be a difference of benefit between two people who are today in the same team doing the same job. Through no fault of theirs, they may be treated differently at a future date. That could make for bad relationships. If the Minister replies, "I appreciate that, but it has nothing to do with us," that will be totally unsatisfactory because it is only because of the abolition of the authority and the creation of the new ILEA that the situation arises.
If the Minister replies, "They could have opted out, applied for the new jobs and thereby gained," we shall remind him that there is a cut-off point after which people cannot be designated across. In other words, there is no individual or collective option for people such as engineers to benefit from parallel conditions and terms of employment.
Will the Minister undertake to do something about this problem between now and the cut-off point in a few weeks' time? For example, will the Department, with the Department of Education and Science, consult those affected to ensure that the relatively minor adjustment that is needed to solve the problem is made? I appreciate that that cannot be done tonight; this instrument must be accepted or rejected and cannot be amended. The necessary amending regulations could be laid under section 53 of the Local Government Act 1985. This is not a technical matter. It affects the professional lives, working relationships and potential career prospects of people, many of whom are extremely senior, widely experienced and highly competent staff, whom nobody has criticised for their back-up service, given over many years, to ILEA or the GLC, or both.
I look to the Minister for a strong assurance that we can make some progress to remedy the severe anomalies that affect the education authority for our capital city.

Mr. Allen McKay: The Minister will know the point that I am about to raise, as I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). There is no need to go over the points that he made, because he adduced a powerful argument against the problems that have been caused by the abolition of the metropolitan counties. The Minister knows that I feel that they should never have been abolished. If they had to be, many of the problems that have, and will occur, could have been prevented. The services should have been run side by side, and gradually the responsibilities should have been transferred from the metropolitan authorities, just as happened in 1974.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) talked about the gravy train in 1974, but that was not for those made redundant but for those in work. Many officers, because they were going into areas with larger

populations, received great salary increases because all salaries were based on those of the chief executive, who was in charge of a greater area. That was quite in accordance with procedures, so there was nothing wrong with it, except that, finally, the cost was far in excess of what anybody expected.
I am concerned about those who are being made redundant, particularly those in South Yorkshire, who, through no fault of theirs, have found themselves being treated differently from others in the same grade. I worked for a long time with the NCB, and, sadly, one of my duties was to make people redundant. However, we never treated people in the same grades differently. They were treated alike throughout the length and breadth of the country. There were times when legislation changed, and cut-off points had to be adhered to, but they were not on any particular body but spread throughout the country. In its rundown of the industry, the board has always treated everybody in the same grade alike. That is why the board's redundancy scheme was successful. When enhanced payments were introduced, everybody enjoyed them.
Those involved in the redundancy in the metropolitan counties are not on a gravy train. They are facing the most traumatic experience in their working lives. Sometimes for the first time, they are realising that they are vulnerable to the problems of the system. People who thought that they would be working until they were 60 or 65 are suddenly finding themselves unwanted.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who talked about the choice of working for the metropolitan counties, but these people have no choice. They have no job. That is what abolition was about—savings in public expenditure. Those savings were talked about in Committee, and it was shown that the only saving that could be made were through the loss of jobs and staff.
My area has a 20 per cent. unemployment, and a male unemployment rate of 25 to 26 per cent., so what choice is there? In my area, where unemployment is 21 per cent. and male unemployment is 25 or 26 per cent. what other jobs are available? The people know full well that in some cases they will never work again. It is no gravy train. This will be compensation for losing a job and having to bring up a family in the atmosphere of having lost that job.
We are not talking about statistics. This House talks too often of statistics, without realising that people are behind those statistics. Sometimes they are single people, or they may have a family. This is not a gravy train. Most people would continue with their jobs rather than be made redundant if they had the choice. Let us forget that gravy train and concentrate on what will happen on abolition. I did not want abolition. I have said that. But it has come about and we have to face the problems when they confront us. When we consider the problem of abolition, we can treat people alike.
I always fear, especially with this Government, that all this talk of levelling tends to level down rather than up. I hope that will not happen in this case. In many industries, those who receive redundancy payments under statutory provisons have always received enhanced payments. That has occurred in mining and steel, as well as in private industries. When we talk of the running-down of private steel works in our area, we know that redundant workers always receive enhanced payments. When directors are made redundant, they do not receive statutory industrial payments but what used to be called a golden handshake.


Whatever it is called now, it is compensation for losing a job. That covers all of us. We are not talking of anything that is different for anybody else.
Our system tries to treat people differently. I accept that there will be a cut-off date now. The date does not affect everybody equally; it affects everybody unequally. We ask the Government to consider that situation tonight and to recognise the anomalies that will be caused by putting the date into the Act.
I argued at the time that it should never have been there. The problem is that on 31 March those working for Metropolitan counties will be affected by the same legislation throughout the length and breath of the country. They will be made redundant by that legislation.
We say that they must be treated alike. The Government must ensure that the enhanced payments available to some authorities will be available to the three authorities caught in the trap. It will not cost much or lose any credibility for the Government. It will prove that there is some feeling left in this Government for the effects of their legislation. People will be affected. The Government should consider now those who will be affected by the measure. Let us consider it and bring it in, and make sure that of all the Government's follies this will not be another one.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I much appreciate — indeed, I share — the Opposition's view of the importance of the debate, and of the compensation regulations.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) has spoken warmly of the staff of the Greater London council and of the metropolitan councils. The Government share that warmth towards the staff, if the Government do not share the Opposition's view of the authorities for which those staff work.
It is slightly ironic that Oppostion Members should pray against the compensation regulations. It would be most unfair on the staff if at the eleventh hour Parliament were to reject the regulations. That would be the logical result of granting the prayer.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that the only way to debate this matter is by using the technical device of praying against the regulations. I hope that he will accept that nobody wishes the beneficial effects of the regulations to be prevented. However, we want to make sure that what has not been covered is dealt with by having it debated and answered in the House.

Mr. Tracey: I shall try to answer the points that have been raised, among others, by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
The need for the regulations is urgent. There are 25 days to abolition day. Already the staff of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils are rearranging their lives either to fit into the new structure or to find new pastures. Although the contents of the regulations are, as I shall show, widely known and although their effect is retrospective to Royal Assent to the Local Government Act 1985, it is right that the staff of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils should know

exactly what Parliament is to make available to them by way of compensation for redundancy or for financial detriment.
For that reason, we on this side of the House would have been keen to see the regulations approved by Parliament many months ago. Part of this debate has focussed upon an apparent delay by the Government. However, it has proved to be impossible to ask Parliament to approve them earlier than this, principally because we were determined to give the Trades Union Congress and the unions what might be described as a last gasp opportunity to put their views to us before we took our final decisions. We had persistently tried to talk to them, but they had rejected all of our many invitations to them to talk to us about the way that abolition would affect their members' interests.
I understand that the refusal of the TUC and the unions to talk to us was determined by a Labour party national executive council resolution which banned anyone from talking to the Government about abolition. It is up to them to deny that fact, but that is what we have always understood and that was fairly apparent during the debates in this House on the legislation. This matter fell under the same umbrella.
Our first invitation to the unions and to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, representing the employers, followed upon our White Paper in October 1983, two and a half years ago. We said then that we would talk to them about all staffing issues, including our proposal to base the compensation terms for redundant staff on those generally available to local government and also our proposal that we would provide compensation for staff who suffered detriment because they had to move to jobs at lower rates of pay.
The TUC and the AMA refused to discuss these matters with us. Only the Federation of Managerial and Professional Officers' Unions—now FUMPO—had the courage and the common sense to take up our invitation, while making their opposition to the principle of abolition clear.
We repeated our invitation on subsequent occasions. One such occasion of great significance for the issues before us tonight was in March 1984. On 1 March 1984, the Government announced to Parliament that we would take steps to disallow compensation terms other than those to be set in the abolition legislation. We did this because we believed it to be right to set nationally applicable terms for a reorganisation of this kind and of this scope and scale.
The steps that we took were to place two provisions in what became section 53 of the Act. The first one requires compensation to be paid only in accordance with regulations to be made for the purpose — these regulations. The second — implementing our promise that we would not take away, retrospectively, anyone's legal rights established before our announcement — protected contractual rights to better compensation which any officer had obtained on or before the day of our announcement. Indeed, there has been some discussion of those very terms tonight.
In doing this, we followed well-established precedents for Governments to protect forthcoming legislation against pre-emptive action by interested parties. It was, as subsequent events have underlined, a very important step, both for the staff and for the abolition authorities. We


again invited the representation of both to discuss such matters with us. But still the TUC and AMA stayed away from the negotiating table.
We repeated our invitation late in 1984. We had introduced the Bill with many clauses relating to staff. We had published our proposed terms for redundancy compensation, including the possiblity of some enhancements for the 41 to 49 age group. We had secured majorities on the floor of the House not only for the principle of abolition but for the date of 1 April 1986. We invited the TUC and AMA to talk. Once again, they sat on their hands.
The TUC stayed put until 14 July 1985— that is, eight months ago. Then, only two days before the Royal Assent to the 1985 Act and nearly two years after our first invitation, it sat down to discuss with us staffing aspects of abolition.
I suggest that we would have been well within our rights to say, there and then, that it had come too late to discuss compensation issues. We could reasonably have decided to get on with the complex task of making the regulations. That would have minimised the uncertainties facing staff.
But we chose not to. We gave the TUC the opportunity to negotiate in earnest. We also included the AMA, which came hurrying along to see us on the coat tails of the TUC, a mere three months after, in October 1985; and still asking for more time! During those negotiations, we published consultation papers on detriment compensation and on an early release scheme, and we provided the TUC and AMA with all the help and guidance we could about the staffing provisions of the new Act.
Finally, after four months of tough negotiations—I will say that for those across the table from us— we made our final decisions, which were announced by my noble Friend the Minister of State on 13 November. Knowing how important the terms were to the staff, we gave our decisions full publicity so that, during the time it would take to transform the terms into a statutory instrument, everyone concerned — old and new employers, individual officers and union officials— would know precisely what the terms were.
Even before our final decisions were made we had, of course, made considerable strides in drafting the necessary regulations. We were offered help by the TUC, the AMA, FUMPO, NALGO and the staff commission with the technicalities of drafting. This we accepted, and I can readily say that we are very grateful for that help. The regulations are the better for it, in our view. But the process of consultation, responses, and redrafting took us into this year, when we laid the regulations at the earliest practicable opportunity.
Given the late hour, and given that the House has known the substance of the terms—since well-publicised terms—since 13 November last, I do not intend to go through the terms in detail. We have indeed, placed a memorandum in the Library which does this.
I should like, if I may, in the time remaining to me to deal with the points which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, most particularly by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman talked about the terms and why, indeed, the terms applying to the staff of the GLC and the metropolitan counties were not the same as those applying to the Civil Service.
We made it clear as long ago as 1980 that the Crombie terms were no longer appropriate. In deciding on the terms set out in the regulations we started with the existing local government provisions but we took account of the unique circumstances which have come about as a result of abolition. We took account of the priorities that the unions in particular identified for improving those terms.
We have set terms which are fair for people who through no fault of their own have had their working lives disrupted by the legislation which they could not have anticipated up to three years ago; legislation which, I must tell the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), we agree with and feel strongly about. But we fully accept that the staff could not have anticipated it entirely up to three years ago. We still say that the terms which have been set are fair on the ratepayers who will foot the bill.
We have been asked why we set three years as the qualifying period. Initially we proposed a qualifying period of five years' continuous local government service, including, in the case of the GLC and the metropolitan counties employees only, two years' service with that employer. But in the light of consultations we decided to relax both requirements. We decided that the appropriate qualifying period for compensation lasting as long as eight years could not be set at less than three years. I remind hon. Members that the Crombie code, the sort of code that has been discussed for Civil Service workers, and indeed the Crombie code used in the 1974 reorganisation of local government, prescribed the qualifying period of five years.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington also talked about the timing of detriment payments. He is correct to say that entitlement to compensation for detriment will arise at the end of each 12-month period. He is also right to say that each compensating authority can make payments on account before the end of each period. That is a fair and flexible approach. It reflects the reality that detriment can only be based on comparing year with year, but at the same time it allows the compensating authority to make timely payments during each year.
The hon. Gentleman compared local government staff with those who had been transferred compulsorily out of local government to the water authorities in 1974 and who subsequently rejoined local government. Such staff are not able to reckon either their water authority service or the local government service which preceded it in calculating their entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment. That is not the direct result of the regulations in relation to abolition. The point here applies generally.

Mr. Boyes: Tell the people who are affected who have worked in the water industry or the Health Service why. Explain in detail why they will not get the compensation for that period when they worked in local government before 1974 and were compulsorily transferred into those other industries.

Mr. Tracey: The difference was made clear at the lime when the original transfer was made. It was not a question of being transferred from one area of local government to another. This was a quite different matter. Indeed, that point is well known now. That is a perfectly fair answer to the hon. Gentleman. I think that it is well known to people who were transferred into the water authorities.
The hon. Gentleman asked why an employee who already had 40 years' service would not have his pension


enhanced by added years. The abolition compensation terms are based on the general local government superannuation and compensation arrangements which provide that such a person cannot accrue more than 40 years' service by the age of 60. Therefore, a person who already has 40 years' service when he reaches 60 does not receive added years.
Many of us will have sympathy with what the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington said about maternity rights. Any woman who has by the time of abolition established her right to maternity pay under employment legislation will be able to get from the appropriate residuary body any part of her entitlement which is outstanding when the GLC and the metropolitan counties are abolished. However, the position of any contractual entitlements is less clear. If such entitlements survive termination of a contract of employment they will be met by the appropriate residuary body, but it is far from clear why that group should be specifically compensated if such entitlements are lost and compensation for redundancy is available. Other groups, such as the long-term sick and people on compassionate leave, are equally deserving. It would be invidious to make distinctions. The point about maternity rights has been raised with my right hon. Friend by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and it will be explored in the Department.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pinpointed anomalies affecting staff who work for the Inner London education authority. Staff transferred by order will retain their existing contractual rights. Staff transferred to ILEA will retain London Local Act terms, but recruited staff will be offered normal local government terms. We do not consider that the difference is a sufficient reason for extending the London Local Act terms generally to new London bodies.
The hon. Gentleman made some fair points about what he described as extraordinary anomalies. I undertake to consider them. I do not want to raise his hopes too high, but as we are a compassionate Government we shall examine the anomalies again before we reach our decision at the end of the 25 days.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall forward the correspondence and the documents to him almost immediately. He and I appreciate the great urgency, because time is short. Perhaps the matter can be pursued with the Government outside the House in a matter of days so that we can try to overcome what may seem to be a small problem but which is a big one for the people concerned.

Mr. Tracey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, we shall read the correspondence with interest.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington referred critically to the article in the Daily Express about gravy trains. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) spoke passionately about examples that

concern his constituents and others in the north of England. I cannot comment on schemes as raised by the Daily Express and my hon. Friend as I am not aware of the terms, and to comment would be unfair to individuals. My hon. Friend reflected deep-seated anger at excessively generous terms being worked out. We have felt that some of the terms are extremely excessive if that is possible.

Mr. Boyes: Surely the Minister will not now base a case on one example given by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield). The Minister is about to generalise from one individual. I tried to explain, as the Daily Express concedes about the GLC:
most of his 4,000 staff will get between £1,000 and £3,000.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury is a director of Cullingworth Textiles Ltd. and of Caldaire Independent Hospital plc and has the trade of solicitor and notary public, and he is objecting to some people from the GLC and the metropolitan counties getting compensation of between £1,000 and £3,000. That really is hypocritical.

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that I am generalising. I do not want to make general points but, as he has mentioned the commercial world in regard to my hon. Friend, perhaps I ought to read some of the Daily Express leader of 3 March which said:
private companies use money freely raised in the market place. Local authorities use money extorted from their hapless ratepayers. There is a world of difference.
I do not subscribe to the precise language, but the sentiments are not entirely unreasonable and are shared by a good many people. We have not tried to change the terms which were established before 1 March 1984. I am afraid, however, that we cannot level up in local authorities that did not negotiate deals before that date as those terms would impose a completely unacceptable burden on ratepayers. No Government could accept that decisions taken by each authority should determine the terms to be set nationally in a statutory reorganisation.
The Government have worked the regulations out fairly and patiently, given the amount of vacillation, time wasting and, indeed obstructive behaviour, of the Trades Union Congress and some of the local government unions. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and negatived.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Standing Committees on European Community documents)

USE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE IN AGRICULTURE

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9576/82 and 7719/84, draft Directive and Amendment on the use of sewage sludge in agriculture; and affirms the need to ensure that a directive, whilst incorporating measures to protect human health and the environment, does not inhibit the safe use of sewage sludge on agricultural land.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Question agreed to.

Drugs Misuse and AIDS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for making it possible for me to raise a grave and urgent matter—the connection between misusers of drugs and the spread of the dreaded disease AIDS. I do so in my capacity as chairman of the all-party committee on the misuse of drugs, which spans both Houses of Parliament.
Drugs misuse is serious enough. Since 1979 there has been a rapid and disturbing increase in the number of addicts. It is now estimated that more than 60,000 people regularly misuse drugs, with heroin misuse being most common, but many other drugs are involved, including amphetamines and sedatives. The vast majority of those who are affected are under 30, and many are in their teens.
Moreover, there is a continuing increase in the number of new addicts. My all-party committee on drug misuse has been advised that in 1985 there was probably a 25 per cent. increase in the number of new addicts as compared with 1984. Although the Customs and Excise has continued to seize very large quantities of illicit drugs and is to be warmly congratulated on its efforts, this has not stemmed the rise in addiction. The purity of illicit drugs now available to addicts does not seem to have declined and there has been no significant rise in the price addicts pay for drugs on the street. Since there is no real shortage, addiction is likely to go on increasing.
The damage caused both to the young people involved and to the nation is incalculable. The Select Committee on Home Affairs described it as the most serious peacetime threat to our society and few would disagree with that assessment. But now an even greater threat has been added to what is already a serious social problem—the risks associated with infection by the HTLV 3 virus and the development of AIDS.
In the United Kingdom the first case of AIDS was reported as recently as the end of 1981. Since then the number of cases detected has increased rapidly. By the end of last year 275 cases had been reported, 216 of them in London and most of the remainder in a few large urban centres in England. Since then I think that I can say with some authority that 144 of those people have died. The long incubation period of the disease dictates that the number of cases will increase steeply for several years. Predictions suggest that we can expect a further 300 to 400 new cases this year and by 1988 there may be about 2,000 more.
In public health terms, even more significant is the fact that about 20,000 people, mostly men, are at present infected with the HTLV 3 virus. That figure can be expected, at the very least, to double annually unless steps are taken to inform people how to reduce the risk of developing AIDS by changing their sexual habits.
It has to be said that the incidence of the disease in Britain has so far been substantially lower than elsewhere. In September 1985, Britain ranked ninth out of the 21 reporting European countries. The incidence in the United States is about 13 times higher than it is here, and by October 1985 more than 13,000 cases of AIDS had been reported in that country. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that there is not much comfort to be

gained from the fact that this dreadful disease, for which there is no known cure, is currently less prevalent here than elsewhere.
Let us consider how the disease can be spread. We know that the virus which underlies AIDS can, in addition to spreading between practising homosexuals and among drug addicts who share needles when injecting drugs, be transmitted by men to women during normal intercourse, by an infected mother to an unborn child in the womb, and probably by women to men during normal intercourse.
We have already been warned. Reports from Edinburgh show a high rate of infection with the HTLV 3 virus among drug users who have injected themselves. It seems that 57 per cent. of drug misusers tested in a general practice in one area of the city are infected. In Dundee, all those who have been found to be infected by the virus have been drug misusers who inject drugs. For the rest of the country there is admittedly a lower rate of infection, but it is rising A relatively short time ago the rate was 5 per cent. I am told that it is now as high as 10 per cent.
This infection in drug misusers is a very serious problem. Although sharing injection equipment is the route of transmission, the addict remains infected for the rest of his life. Even stopping drug misuse is no protection from AIDS, although this may reduce the chances of the full syndrome developing in someone who is infected. Importantly, men and women are equally at risk. Non-drug using partners can become infected, as can babies born to infected mothers. Given that many drug misusers overcome their addiction and return to more normal lives, they may nevertheless infect others who are at present not considered to be at risk and have not the faintest idea that they are at risk.
It is clear that urgent and sustained action is necessary to check the spread of this dreadful disease. If it is not checked, it will become endemic among injecting drug users and it is likely that it will infect others who have never injected drugs and have never had any reason to suppose themselves to be at risk.
I raise this matter because I am anxious to know how the Government view this appalling prospect. Can my right hon. Friend tell us what plans he has to educate the public about this serious health matter? Can he tell us what should be done to limit the spread of infection? Does he not agree that the medical profession needs educating as well as the public? Has his attention been drawn to an appallingly irresponsible booklet entitled "Sex for Beginners" which has been published by the British Medical Association, which unbelievably speaks of some men enjoying anal intercourse? There is no qualification, no warning, only a crude indication that anal intercourse is a practice which some people accept as normal. Is this not an encouragement to activity which is anti-social and dangerous in the extreme? Surely the BMA should be told to withdraw the booklet, which in this context is irresponsible in the extreme and must be offensive to many doctors. Will my right hon. Friend take immediate action on this? I ask him now to take immediate action.
There are other questions which I must put to my right hon. Friend. As drug misusers are at serious risk, what steps are being taken to make them aware of the dangers of injecting drugs and sharing equipment with other drug addicts? I know that the Government are alert to these problems and I am not criticising my right hon. Friend and his Department. I know that extra money has been made available recently, but what funds have been allocated


specifically to ensure that adequate steps are taken both to inform drug misusers of the dangers I have mentioned and to train those who work in this area—brave spirits— helping drug addicts? I know, too, of the work which has been undertaken to prepare posters and leaflets for drug misusers and I welcome the efforts made by my right hon. Friend's Department to support preventive efforts of this sort.
May I take the opportunity, on behalf of the all-party committee, to thank the chief medical officer for England and Wales and his colleague, the chief medical officer for Scotland, for the way in which they have taken us into their confidence in this matter? In return, I can say that my committee has complete confidence in them and their approach to the problem.
However, the efforts of my right hon. Friend's Department are merely preliminary steps to what must be a sustained campaign. What additional steps does my right hon. Friend propose to take to ensure that the resources needed for effective preventive work are mobilised before HTLV 3 infection and AIDS reaches the levels throughout Britain already reached in Edinburgh? Incidentally, the level in Edinburgh seems to be comparable to that in New York. That is a dreadful statement to have to make.
In some circles it is proposed that needles and syringes should be made more readily available to reduce the likelihood that injection equipment will be shared between drug misusers. Is that not strange logic? If dirty, reused needles and syringes are the principal means of spreading infection among drug users, would not a freer supply result in the means of infection being more widely available than is now the case? Is this not the equivalent of trying to control an epidemic of smallpox by issuing vials of smallpox to the population at large? If, as seems to be the case, drug misusers who turn to injection almost inevitably use the injection equipment of someone else, would not the proposal infect many more people than might otherwise be the case? While there may well be good clinical grounds for providing clean injection equipment to drug misusers within the context of a controlled treatment programme under professional medical direction surely no ethical or clinical grounds can be offered for increased availability outside an authorised treatment programme?
Moreover, I believe that there may be doubts about the legality of such a course when equipment is provided in the belief that the person supplied will use it for the purpose of taking illegal drugs.
The Home Office has stated its intention of tackling the problem of cocaine sniffing kits. Would not the sales of needles and syringes to addicts, intent on injecting illegal drugs, come into the same category? Is it possible that supplying such equipment is tantamount to inciting, assisting, aiding or abetting the commitment of offence? I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would comment on those points. I hope, too, that he will agree that tackling HTLV 3 infection must be a priority. Failure to respond now will inevitably result in untold social harm and immense cost as those who are victims of this appalling disease will eventually have to be cared for by the health service. I repeat that we are dealing here with a disease for which there is no known cure. The chief medical officer for England and Wales told my committee that a vaccine to treat the disease is not expected in less

than five years. Here we have an instance where prevention is better than cure, especially as we do not have a cure and cannot hope to have one for several years.
This is the most serious problem that we have had to face for years and clearly there is no room for complacency. If drug misusers are to be assisted, the means must be provided to allow them an alternative to continued drug misuse. The Government's prevention campaign is to be welcomed. We have a long way to go, but a start has been made. Now an equally forceful campaign must be mounted to ensure that those already involved in drug misuse are aware of the dangers that they run from AIDS. Education is only part of the answer. Without effective treatment services which attract those most at risk, education will be of little use to those already addicted.
In the United States, where experience of this problem is well in advance of our own, education has been accompanied by a very substantial increase in treatment services for drug misusers. These have included methadone treatment programmes to move drug misusers away from injection and to help them to become drug free. What plans do the Government have to ensure that there will be an increase in treatment services in this country?
With the possibility that HTLV 3 infection will spread rapidly unless adequate measures are taken, decisions on central Government direction and financing should be taken now. To leave hard-pressed health authorities to determine priorities in their own good time will inevitably mean that in a few years they will have little or no choice. Treatment of those who have AIDS will then become a priority in health spending whether we like it or not. Increased treatment services now is a cheaper and more humane option both for drug misusers and the population generally. "The Guidelines of Good Clinical Practice in the Treatment of Drug Misuse" suggest a short and rapid drug detoxification, and a referral of more difficult cases to hospital services. If such services are not available, those most likely to be infected are the ones least likely to be offered help and most likely to spread infection through the population.
I know that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues take this matter seriously, as does the chief medical officer and his colleagues. My concern tonight is to elicit from my right hon. Friend what plans he has to ensure a coherent and co-ordinated response to this most serious threat to public health. But I also feel that it is my duty to warn that, while it may still seem to many that this is a minority problem, without adequate attention and resources being devoted now to its containment it will soon cease to be a minority problem and will then demand far greater resources and bolder responses than have so far been envisaged. Time, I admit, is running out fast.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for raising this important and worrying subject of drug misuse, and the spread of the AIDS virus, HTLV 3. He does so with authority, as chairman of the all-party committee on drug misuse. I wish to make it abundantly clear that the Government attach high priority to a co-ordinated programme of action to control and limit the spread of the AIDS virus as a means of safeguarding public health. Before I mention the


measures that the Government are taking, it may be helpful if I say something about the AIDS virus and its spread in the United Kingdom.
The AIDS virus is not highly infectious. It is not spread by normal social contact, such as shaking hands, coughing, sneezing and sharing washing, eating, drinking and toilet facilities. Normal routes of transmission are through intimate sexual contacts, or exposure to infected blood products. Despite the limited ways in which the infection spreads, many people in the United Kingdom have been exposed to the virus. To update the figures of my right hon. Friend, at the end of February 305 full clinical cases of AIDS had been reported, of which 157 had died. The majority of cases—88 per cent.—were in homosexual men. Only three cases have been reported where injecting drug misuse was the main risk factor.
The number of cases is only the tip of the iceberg of the problems posed by the virus. Many more people have unknowingly been affected. At present they have no symptoms of illness, but they must be regarded as infectious. A proportion, perhaps one in four, may develop AIDS.
It is difficult to estimate how many people are at present infected with the HTLV 3 virus. My right hon. Friend gave an estimate of 20,000, and that would be regarded by the experts as a realistic assessment of the present position. However, no reliable estimates of the proportion of drug misusers who have become infected by sharing and using infected needles and syringes have been made.
However, two recent, small scale studies in Scotland have revealed a disturbingly high level of infection. My right hon. Friend referred to one of those studies. This supports the view based on the experience of the United States, that drug misusers who are injecting drugs must be considered as a high risk group for exposure to the virus.
While it is possible to identify groups within the community which at the moment have a higher risk of exposure to infection, the infection can spread outside these groups. For that reason, the Government have adopted a broad strategy of co-ordinated action aimed at minimising the risk for both the high risk groups and the general public.
Let me outline the main parts of this strategy. Information is collected by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and expert medical advice is provided by a high powered and authoritative, expert advisory group. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about the way that his Committee has been assisted by the chief medical officer of my Department, a most distinguished epidemiologist, and also by his opposite number in Scotland. There is a committee to monitor the spread of the infection and advice on measures to reduce it and that has branches in Scotland and Wales. There is also an inter-Departmental Ministerial steering group chaired by myself and backed by an official group to co-ordinate strategy on wider issues.
Specific measures to improve the safety of blood and blood products have been taken, including the screening and testing of blood donations and the heat treatment of blood products. Testing facilities are now generally available together with a counselling service for those found to be infected.
Additional resources have been provided for the three Thames regions—North East, North West and South East—which are treating some 75 percent. of the AIDS cases.
General advice and guidance has been issued, some directly by the Government, for example to the health professionals and to the local education authorities—and some by voluntary, charity and private agencies funded by the Government—the Health Education Council, the standing committee on drug abuse, the Terence Higgins Trust, the Scottish AIDS Monitor are all organisations which have produced posters and leaflets highlighting the particular dangers for injecting drug misusers.
That material explains the way that the virus is transmitted and particularly emphasises the risks of infection associated with the sharing of injection equipment, needles and syringes. Information on this route of transmission of infection will also be provided in the forthcoming national public information campaign on AIDS which is in an advanced state of preparation with £2·5 million —a very substantial sum—having been allocated by the Government for that campaign. I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot preempt the detailed content of that campaign this evening, but I hope that further details will be available soon. These are all important steps aimed at controlling the spread of the virus which causes AIDS.
I should like to respond to the point made by my right hon. Friend about another measure which some people are advocating for controlling the infection in drug misusers —the suggestion that needles and syringes should be made more freely available.
The transmission of the AIDS virus through contaminated shared needles and syringes is extremely worrying, but, like my right hon. Friend, I am not persuaded by the evidence that I have seen that clean syringes and needles, freely available, would necessarily deter established injecting users, whether or not receiving prescribed drugs, from sharing their equipment with other drug users. I am inclined to believe that there is a real risk that greater availability of needles and syringes, by encouraging drug users to experiment with injection, could make matters worse. Much evidence shows that first injections and further early injections are made by using borrowed equipment before injection becomes a regular practice for the individual concerned. I do not believe, according to the evidence as presented to me, that the greater availability of "clean" equipment, if one could so describe it, would have the effect that many argue in reducing the use of contaminated needles.
As drug misusers realise the gravity of the threat to their health from the HTLV infection, I hope that they will cease sharing their equipment. I hope that this debate will act in that direction. Better still, let them seek help so that they stop injecting or taking drugs altogether. Priority is being given to treatment centres with this aim in view.
My right hon. Friend referred to doubts that had been raised about the legality of supplying equipment in the knowledge that the person supplied is going to use it to take illegal drugs and asked whether similar measures to those being taken in relation to the sale of cocaine sniffing kits could be adopted. The new offence which will be created by an amendment to the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill in the case of cocaine kits and other paraphernalia which may be supplied for the purpose of administering illicit drugs will exempt syringes and needles, so as to avoid any measure which could even encourage illicit drug users to re-use such items, with the attendant risks of AIDS and hepatitis. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that that is wise.
My right hon. Friend referred to the BMA booklet "Safe Sex for Beginners". I have studed a copy of it. My right hon. Friend was right to express grave concern about the way in which the document refers to anal intercourse without even mentioning that such intercourse carries a high risk of transmitting this virus. The booklet was published some time ago. I understand that the BMA is well aware of this concern, and I gather that this serious omission will be remedied in a reprint of the booklet which should be published shortly. I am sure that my right hon. Friend welcomes that as I do.
AIDS is a serious public health hazard. Growing dangers must not be minimised. Nevertheless, it should be seen in perspective. My right hon. Friend was almost certainly right in predicting that some 2,000 AIDS victims

will be identified in 1988. We should not forget that some 100,000 people will almost certainly die this year from smoking-related illnesses. We need to see these matters in perspective.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw our attention to the particular and dreadful dangers linking drug misuse with this horrifying disease which, as things stand, is incurable. Great efforts are being made by the medical fraternity in the United Kingdom and overseas to find a cure, but the right way to stop infection is for people to change their habits, to cease casual and promiscuous relationships. Those unfortunate people who misuse drugs must be careful to avoid the dangers to which we have referred.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o' clock.